Homes for a Changing Region

Page 1

Homes for a Changing Region Phase 3: Implementing Balanced Housing Plans at the Local Level

Year Six: Arlington Heights, Buffalo Grove, Mount Prospect, Palatine, and Rolling Meadows

3

Homes for a Changing Region Phase 3: Implementing Balanced Housing Plans at the Local Level

Year Six: Arlington Heights, Buffalo Grove, Mount Prospect, Palatine, and Rolling Meadows

4

January 2013 Over the last ten months, the Metropolitan Mayors Caucus (MMC), the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP), and the Metropolitan Planning Council (MPC) have collaborated on a forward-looking housing ^ZO\\W\U SfS`QWaS eWbV bVS ÀdS [S[PS`a ]T bVS <]`bVeSab AcPc`PO\ 6]caW\U 1]ZZOP]`ObWdS µ /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS ;]c\b >`]a^SQb >OZObW\S and Rolling Meadows. With the ongoing technical support of CMAP and 4`SU]\SaS /aa]QWObSa O\ ]cbaWRS Q]\acZbW\U À`[ bVS T]c` U`]c^a VOdS e]`YSR eWbV [c\WQW^OZ ]TÀQWOZa bVSW` abOTTa O\R `SaWRS\ba b] RSdSZ]^ V]caW\U policy action plans for each of the participating communities. The group also SfO[W\SR Qc``S\b O\R ^`]XSQbSR V]caW\U RObO T]` bVS S\bW`S ÀdS Q][[c\Wbg group and developed some general recommendations. We want to thank outside contributors to the project — The Chicago 1][[c\Wbg B`cab O\R bVS 6O``Wa 4O[WZg 4]c\RObW]\ µ T]` bVSW` À\O\QWOZ ac^^]`b ES OZa] eO\b b] bVO\Y >`SaWRS\b /`ZS\S ;cZRS` ]T /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba ;Og]` 8STT`Sg 0`OW[O\ ]T 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS ;Og]` 7`dO\O EWZYa ]T ;]c\b >`]a^SQb ;Og]` 8W[ AQVeO\bh ]T >OZObW\S O\R ;Og]` B][ @]]\Sg ]T @]ZZW\U Meadows, as well as their staffs for the extensive help they provided for their community studies. /ZZWa]\ ;WZZR 1ZS[S\ba ]T bVS ;;1 ;O`g :c ASWRSZ ]T bVS <]`bVeSab AcPc`PO\ 6]caW\U 1]ZZOP]`ObWdS <O\Qg 4W`TS` O\R 9W\U 6O``Wa ]T bVS ;>1 and CMAP staff provided oversight to the project.

MarySue Barrett President, Metropolitan Planning Council David Bennett Executive Director, Metropolitan Mayors Caucus Randy Blankenhorn Executive Director, Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning

5

Table of Contents Opening Letter

4

Subregional Report and Recommendations

7

Housing Policy Plan: Arlington Heights

17

Housing Policy Plan: Buffalo Grove

37

Housing Policy Plan: Mount Prospect

57

Housing Policy Plan: Palatine

77

Housing Policy Plan: Rolling Meadows

95

Appendix

115

List of Acronyms

130

6

( IL 21 aukee M ilw

n

LAKE IL 22 (Half Day Road)

)

ue Aven

94

y)

BUFFALO GROVE

d

Quentin/Roselle /Bloomingdale Rds. Source: CMAP.

n

294

Ro

ad Palatine Road / Willow Road )

ARLINGTON HEIGHTS MOUNT PROSPECT

n

290

I-294

2( Alg onq uinR ROLLING oad )/ MEADOWS IL 5 8 (G olf R 90 d.)

DUPAGE

(R

an

PALATINE

IL 6

12

Rt. 83

US

Lake Cook Road

n y Ave.)

IL 72 (Higgins Rd. / Touh

COOK

7

Subregional Report and Recommendations Northwest Suburban Housing Collaborative Background This year’s Homes for a Changing Region (Homes) report comes Ob bVS `S_cSab ]T bVS ÀdS \SWUVP]`W\U [c\WQW^OZWbWSa bVOb [OYS c^ bVS <]`bVeSab AcPc`PO\ 6]caW\U 1]ZZOP]`ObWdS 1]ZZOP]`ObWdS O\R <EA61 µ /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS ;]c\b >`]a^SQb Palatine, and Rolling Meadows. Compared to the 279 other [c\WQW^OZWbWSa W\ bVS 1VWQOU] `SUW]\ bVSaS ÀdS O`S [WRRZS W\Q][S predominantly owner-occupied communities with access to highquality public schools. The subregion is largely auto-oriented in terms of development but has relatively good access to commuter `OWZ ASdS`OZ [c\WQW^OZWbWSa `SQS\bZg RSdSZ]^SR []`S b`O\aWb oriented downtown areas. The Collaborative communities are Z]QObSR RW`SQbZg \]`bV ]T bVS RS\aS =¹6O`S O\R \]`bVeSab acPc`PO\ b`O\a^]`bObW]\ X]P QS\bS`a dWO 7ZZW\]Wa @]cbS #! bVS <]`bVeSab B]ZZeOg 7 ' O\R bVS B`W AbObS B]ZZeOg 7 '" Median household income $88,272 $80,000 $71,776

$67,823

$70,000

$72,045 $60,144

$60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0 ARLINGTON HEIGHTS

BUFFALO GROVE

MOUNT PROSPECT

Source: 2008-10 American Community Survey.

PALATINE

ROLLING MEADOWS

8

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

Tenure status, percent of occupied housing units % RENT 100% 23.2%

What is affordable housing?

% OWN 16.6%

26.9%

27.1%

25.0%

90%

What constitutes affordable housing varies from household to household, as the measure is relative. For this report, the following U.S. Census guidelines were used:

80% 70%

š “Affordable housing� is housing that costs no more than 30 percent of household income (including utilities, insurance, and taxes).

60% 50%

š “Unaffordable housing� is housing that costs between 30 percent and 50 percent of household income.

40%

š “Severely unaffordable housing� is housing that costs more than 50 percent of household income.

30% 20% 10% 76.8% 0% ARLINGTON HEIGHTS

83.4%

73.1%

72.9%

75.0%

BUFFALO GROVE

MOUNT PROSPECT

PALATINE

ROLLING MEADOWS

In recent years, the Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) [\l\bef\[ Xd Xbj\hdXj_l\ mXo je [\Òd\ ÆX]]eh[XYb\ ^eki_dþÇ Xi housing which costs no more than 45 percent of both housing Xd[ jhXdifehjXj_ed Zeiji% K^_i h\fehj m_bb Xbie Z_j\ j^\i\ Òþkh\i from CNT.

Source: 2008-10 American Community Survey.

The Collaborative formed via an intergovernmental agreement 75/ W\ b] RSdSZ]^ acP`SUW]\OZ a]ZcbW]\a bVOb ORR`Saa bVS aV]`b and long-term housing needs of the participating communities. BVS 75/ Q`SObSR O AbSS`W\U 1][[WbbSS [ORS c^ ]T [c\WQW^OZ staff members who meet regularly to set working priorities. The communities came together to address the common challenges of rising foreclosures, growing income diversity, aging multi-family housing, and the loss of affordable units. Funding from The Chicago Community Trust allowed the Collaborative to hire a shared 6]caW\U 1]]`RW\Ob]` b] ORR`Saa bVSaS QVOZZS\USa BVS 1]ZZOP]`ObWdS VOa OZa] `SQSWdSR U`O\b `Sa]c`QSa T`][ bVS 0;= 6O``Wa 0O\Y 4]c\RObW]\ O\R DWZZOUS 0O\Y O\R B`cab O EW\b`cab OTĂ€ZWObS 3O`Zg ]\ bVS 1]ZZOP]`ObWdS AbSS`W\U 1][[WbbSS WRS\bWĂ€SR aSdS`OZ ab`ObSUWSa to pursue, including rental housing preservation, condominium T]`SQZ]ac`S O\R abOPWZWhObW]\

What follows is a subregional analysis of current conditions, a review of recent policy remedies, a look forward in regards to the housing market, and recommendations for future subregional action. Once subregional issues are detailed, reports on SOQV ]T bVS ÀdS 1]ZZOP]`ObWdS Q][[c\WbWSa eWZZ PS ^`SaS\bSR AcP`SUW]\OZ ab`ObSUWSa VSZ^ SZSQbSR ]TÀQWOZa OQVWSdS O Q]\aS\aca around a direction for the work of the Collaborative as a whole. The Collaborative should consider this a set of broad policy recommendations that can be used to inform implementation priorities and a work plan for the next several years.

SUBREGIONAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

9

Current Conditions The severe recession, which has impacted the entire country, is now W\ Wba ÀTbV gSO` C\S[^Z]g[S\b `S[OW\a VWUV O\R bVS T]`SQZ]ac`S crisis continues to impact a broad range of communities. There have PSS\ # $'# T]`SQZ]ac`S ÀZW\Ua OP]cb # ^S`QS\b ]T b]bOZ V]caW\U units based on 2010 Census data) and 1,931 foreclosure auctions OP]cb & ^S`QS\b ]T b]bOZ V]caW\U c\Wba W\ bVS ÀdS 1]ZZOP]`ObWdS communities from 2009 through 2011. Condominium foreclosures have been especially noteworthy.

Condos as a share of foreclosure auctions vs. owner-occupied units

NWSHC foreclosures, number of filings or auctions FILINGS

OWNER-OCCUPIED MULTIFAMILY UNITS AS A PERCENTAGE OF ALL OWNER-OCCUPIED UNITS

AUCTIONS 2,188

CONDOS AS A PERCENTAGE OF ALL FORECLOSURE AUCTIONS 80%

2,000 1,769

70%

1,738

60%

1,500 50% 40%

1,000

30%

847

20%

579 500

505

10%

2009

2010

Source: Woodstock Institute, http://www.woodstockinst.org/.

2011

CO LA U KE AR NT Y LI NG H T EI O GH N TS BU FF G R AL O O V M E PR O O UN SP T EC T PA LA TI NE RO M L EA LI DO NG W S

0

CO CO UN OK TY

0%

Source: 2008-10 ACS, Woodstock Institute, 2011.

10

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

6][S ^`WQSa R`]^^SR aWU\WÀQO\bZg O\R V][S]e\S`aVW^ `ObSa VOdS declined because of stagnant incomes, high unemployment, and increased credit restrictions. An increased number of owner families O`S \]e ^OgW\U []`S bVO\ # ^S`QS\b ]T bVSW` W\Q][S T]` V]caW\U and housing related expenses.

Average home price depreciation in the past five years

Many other families are “underwater,” meaning the face value of their mortgages exceeds the value of their home. The rental housing market in Collaborative communities, limited even before the current housing crisis, is more strained than ever with a growing \c[PS` ]T `S\bW\U TO[WZWSa ^OgW\U []`S bVO\ ! ^S`QS\b ]` SdS\ # percent of their income for rent. While rental costs are rising, supply has not kept pace with demand ]dS` bVS ^Oab ÀdS gSO`a EVWZS bVS /[S`WQO\ 1][[c\Wbg Ac`dSg /1A ÀUc`Sa R] \]b `SÁSQb bVWa Oa ]T gSb a][S `S\bOZ `SUWab`ObW]\ ÀUc`Sa O\R O\SQR]bOZ SdWRS\QS acUUSab bVOb O U`]eW\U \c[PS` ]T single-family homes are being rented, a situation that presents new challenges to municipal leadership.

ARLINGTON HEIGHTS

BUFFALO GROVE

MOUNT PROSPECT

PALATINE

ROLLING MEADOWS

0%

-10%

-20%

-30%

-40% Source: Trulia, www.trulia.com, pulled 7/25/2012.

Percent of owner occupied housholds paying more than 30% of income on monthly owner costs

Percent of renter occupied housholds paying more than 30% of income on gross rent

2000

2006-10

2000

2006-10

UNAFFORDABLE (30-49% OF INCOME)

UNAFFORDABLE (30-49% OF INCOME)

UNAFFORDABLE (30-49% OF INCOME)

UNAFFORDABLE (30-49% OF INCOME)

SEVERELY UNAFFORDABLE (50%+ OF INCOME)

SEVERELY UNAFFORDABLE (50%+ OF INCOME)

40%

SEVERELY UNAFFORDABLE (50%+ OF INCOME) 50%

SEVERELY UNAFFORDABLE (50%+ OF INCOME)

35%

40% 30% 25%

30%

20%

20%

15% 10%

10% 5% 0%

ARLINGTON HEIGHTS

BUFFALO GROVE

Source: 2000 Census and 2006-10 ACS.

MOUNT PROSPECT

PALATINE

ROLLING MEADOWS

0%

ARLINGTON HEIGHTS

BUFFALO GROVE

Source: 2000 Census and 2006-10 ACS.

MOUNT PROSPECT

PALATINE

ROLLING MEADOWS

SUBREGIONAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

11

Future Projections As part of the Homes process, the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) has developed projections to help the Collaborative and its member municipalities anticipate changes in demand by tenure (rent vs. own) and price point through the year " /UU`SUObS ^`]XSQbSR RS[O\R T]` bVS ÀdS Q][[c\Wbg [O`YSb area indicates that demand by low- to moderate-income families

for owner-occupied housing could exceed supply. At the same time, there could be unmet demand for housing serving the needs of upper income families whose incomes exceed $100,000. Many of these upper income families, however, may choose to live in more affordable homes and spend their income elsewhere.

NWSHC 2010 households and housing stock compared with 2040 owner demand

NWSHC projected 2040 owner demand by age of householder

OCCUPIED HOUSING STOCK AFFORDABLE AT 30% OF INCOME (2010)

25-44 25-40

<25

45-64

65+

20,000

DEMAND AT INCOME LEVEL (2010) PROJECTED DEMAND AT INCOME LEVEL (2040) 25,000

15,000 20,000

15,000

10,000

10,000

5,000 5,000

0

0 <15k

<35k

<50k

<75k

<100k

<150k

150k+

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese ETBH model using 2006-10 ACS and GO TO 2040 household growth projections as inputs.

<15k

<35k

<50k

<75k

<100k

<150k

150k+

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese ETBH model using 2006-10 ACS and GO TO 2040 household growth projections as inputs.

12

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

Rental market projections suggest that the greatest unmet demand across the Collaborative market area will be among households SO`\W\U ZSaa bVO\ !# ^S` gSO` BVSaS V]caSV]ZRa e]cZR PS Z]]YW\U b] `S\b T]` ZSaa bVO\ ' ^S` []\bV AS\W]`a O\R ORcZba OUS # b] "" Q]cZR PS bVS be] OUS Q]V]`ba eWbV bVS U`SObSab aVO`S ]T that demand. NWSHC projected 2040 renter demand by age of householder

NWSHC 2010 households and housing stock compared with 2040 renter demand OCCUPIED HOUSING STOCK AFFORDABLE AT 30% OF INCOME (2010) DEMAND AT INCOME LEVEL (2010)

25-44 25-40

<25

45-64

65+

10,000

PROJECTED DEMAND AT INCOME LEVEL (2040)

10,000

8,000

8,000 6,000 6,000 4,000 4,000 2,000 2,000

0

0 <15k

<35k

<50k

<75k

<100k

<150k

150k+

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese ETBH model using 2006-10 ACS and GO TO 2040 household growth projections as inputs.

<15k

<35k

<50k

<75k

<100k

<150k

150k+

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese ETBH model using 2006-10 ACS and GO TO 2040 household growth projections as inputs.

SUBREGIONAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

13

Regional and National Policy Trends 2Sa^WbS aZ]eW\U T]`SQZ]ac`S ÀZW\Ua bVS \c[PS` ]T V][Sa W\ bVS foreclosure process remains high both nationally and regionally. As such, federal, state, and local policy makers have been busy over the last year looking for ways to help struggling homeowners and prevent the negative community impacts associated with vacancy. BVS <ObW]\OZ ;]`bUOUS AS`dWQW\U ASbbZS[S\b Wa ^`]POPZg bVS most interesting development of 2012. Thanks to a massive state and federal civil law enforcement investigation, the settlement P`]cUVb bVS \ObW]\¹a ÀdS ZO`USab []`bUOUS aS`dWQS`a W\b] O # billion agreement. The agreement includes a minimum of $17 billion in direct aid to struggling homeowners, $3 billion for an

c\RS`eObS` []`bUOUS `SÀ\O\QW\U ^`]U`O[ O\R # PWZZW]\ b] abObS O\R TSRS`OZ STT]`ba <Se aS`dWQW\U O\R T]`SQZ]ac`S abO\RO`Ra O\R an independent monitor will ensure servicer compliance with the aSbbZS[S\b EWbV Tc\Ra T`][ bVS aSbbZS[S\b 7ZZW\]Wa Wa Tc\RW\U ZSUOZ assistance programs to help provide access to the justice system for borrowers and renters ($23 million); foreclosure mediation projects ($3 million); and most recently housing counseling services and `SZWST STT]`ba c^ b] % [WZZW]\ BVS 7ZZW\]Wa /bb]`\Sg 5S\S`OZ¹a ]TÀQS ^cb ]cb O `S_cSab T]` ^`]^]aOZa W\ 2SQS[PS` bVOb a^SQWÀQOZZg ^`W]`WbWhSa acP[WaaW]\a T`][ ¶Q]ZZOP]`ObWdS· bSO[a ]T ^cPZWQ ^`WdObS O\R \]\ ^`]Àb OQb]`a 7\ 7ZZW\]Wa ZOc\QVSR bVS TSRS`OZZg Tc\RSR 7ZZW\]Wa 6O`RSab 6Wb ^`]U`O[ ]TTS`W\U c^ b] # W\ bS[^]`O`g OaaWabO\QS T]` homeowners facing foreclosure due to job loss or pay cuts. The state also launched the Welcome Home Heroes program, providing dSbS`O\a O\R bVSW` TO[WZWSa aSQc`S ÀfSR `ObS Z]O\a O\R c^ b] W\ R]e\ ^Og[S\b OaaWabO\QS 7\ SO`Zg bV`SS abObS RS^O`b[S\ba Q]ZZOP]`ObSR b] Q`SObS bVS 7ZZW\]Wa 4]`SQZ]ac`S >`SdS\bW]\ <Sbe]`Y which provides struggling homeowners with access to a variety of services through counselors at one-stop-shops around the state. 4W\OZZg bVS 1]]Y 1]c\bg 0]O`R ]T 1][[WaaW]\S`a `SQS\bZg ^OaaSR an ordinance that will create a countywide land bank to address the abundant supply of vacant, abandoned, tax-delinquent, and foreclosed properties within the County. An Advisory Committee b] bVS 1]c\bg Q]\aWabW\U ]T V]caW\U O\R À\O\QS Sf^S`ba T`][ bVS ^cPZWQ ^`WdObS O\R \]\ ^`]Àb aSQb]`a `SZSOaSR O `S^]`b W\ December with recommendations for how best to structure the land bank.1 Land banks are used to take possession of distressed properties through direct purchases or non-cash transfers. Properties are held tax-free in a trust until they can become repurposed in a manner that is consistent with the communities’ values and needs. The Collaborative should closely review the `SQ][[S\RObW]\a bVOb QO[S ]cb ]T bVS 1]]Y 1]c\bg :O\R 0O\Y Authority to determine how a countywide land bank could be cbWZWhSR Oa O b]]Z T]` bVS \]`bVeSab acPc`PO\ acP`SUW]\

Source: Cook County.

1 Cook County Land Bank Advisory Committee Report: Revised Second Edition. December 2012. http://blog.cookcountyil.gov/economicdevelopment/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/LBACFinal-Recommendations-Report-Revised-Dec-2012-for-web.pdf (downloaded 1/7/2013).

Recommendations for

14

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

Future Subregional Action BVS Ă€dS 1]ZZOP]`ObWdS Q][[c\WbWSa O`S W\ O\ SfQSZZS\b ^]aWbW]\ to move forward if they carefully plan their future housing development. They remain, relative to many other Chicago-area communities, economically strong and well-governed. Their singlefamily housing stock is in good condition. With the exception of 0cTTOZ] 5`]dSša :OYS 1]c\bg aSQbW]\a bVSg O`S `SZObWdSZg PcWZb ]cb W\ terms of development. 0OaSR ]\ bVSaS ^]W\ba bVS ^`]XSQb bSO[ `SQ][[S\Ra bVS following strategies to improve housing conditions in Collaborative communities. Mitigate the impact of foreclosure As discussed previously, all Collaborative communities have been impacted by foreclosures, especially condominium foreclosures. The Collaborative should evaluate the effectiveness of serving as a point of referral to connect struggling homeowners with counseling and other programs created to reduce the likelihood of mortgage RSTOcZb S\RW\U W\ T]`SQZ]ac`S @SUW]\OZ ]`UO\WhObW]\a Q]\bW\cS b] work proactively to build relationships with the national banks that hold the majority of mortgages in default, however the Collaborative [Og PS OPZS b] W\Ă cS\QS Q][[c\Wbg PO\Ya []`S STTSQbWdSZg BVS Collaborative should determine the willingness of local community banks to work collaboratively on subregional strategies with the same objective. Expanded efforts to track foreclosures and speed their conversion into owner-occupied or rental properties are needed to combat the current foreclosure problem. This could include reviewing local regulations to increase the attractiveness of Collaborative communities for investors that purchase foreclosed properties at auction and manage them as income earning rental properties. 7b [WUVb OZa] W\QZcRS Sf^O\RW\U STT]`ba b] e]`Y eWbV PO\Ya O\R `SOZb]`a b] W\Q`SOaS Z]QOZ aOZSa A^SQWOZ T]Qca aV]cZR PS UWdS\ to monitoring and controlling the rental of condominiums and single-family homes. While most Collaborative communities cbWZWhS `S\bOZ ZWQS\aW\U O\R ZO\RZ]`R SRcQObW]\ ^`]U`O[a bVSaS should be evaluated to determine if best practices are being followed. Creating a joint training program among the Collaborative Q][[c\WbWSa Q]cZR VSZ^ UOW\ STĂ€QWS\QWSa Pg QcbbW\U Q]aba O\R aOdW\U staff time. Thought should be given to working with and advising condominium associations which become economically challenged by high rates of foreclosure.

3\Q]c`OUS PcWZRW\U \Se V]caW\U bVOb Ă€ba bVS \SSRa ]T additional residents While largely built out, new housing development opportunities SfWab W\ OZZ Ă€dS Q][[c\WbWSa 7\ ^ZO\\W\U T]` ORRWbW]\OZ U`]ebV the communities should create a true mix of housing, including rental, small-lot single family homes, town homes, and attached V][Sa Oa eSZZ Oa ZO`US Z]b aW\UZS TO[WZg V][Sa 7b Wa W[^]`bO\b that new developments respond to projected population increases incrementally as the economy slowly climbs out of the current recession. Â’ Take advantage of public transit 4]c` ]T bVS Ă€dS 1]ZZOP]`ObWdS [c\WQW^OZWbWSa VOdS ;Sb`O b`OW\ stations within their limits. The largest share of residents in OZZ Ă€dS b]e\a Q][[cbS a]cbVSOab b] 1VWQOU] ]` \SWUVP]`W\U Q][[c\WbWSa [O\g OZ]\U bVS C\W]\ >OQWĂ€Q <]`bVeSab ]` <]`bV 1S\b`OZ AS`dWQS ;Sb`O ZW\Sa ASdS`OZ 1]ZZOP]`ObWdS Q][[c\WbWSa have been active in redeveloping the areas surrounding those stations with mixed-use, compact development. Transit oriented development provides residents with opportunities to decrease congestion, energy consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions. <Se RSdSZ]^[S\b W\ bVSaS O`SOa aV]cZR ^`]dWRS O [Wf ]T V]caW\U opportunities for families of various incomes based on projected demand. Â’ Include and encourage a balanced housing supply with municipal plans and ordinances Moving forward, Collaborative communities should consider using the demand projections supplied by CMAP as a basis for comprehensive plan recommendations for housing policies and allowable residential development. This would likely mean including all types of housing in comprehensive plans, adopting building standards for affordable housing development, using density bonuses, and allowing the development of accessory ReSZZW\U c\Wba =TbS\ QOZZSR ÂśU`O\\g Ă Oba ¡ OQQSaa]`g ReSZZW\Ua are smaller housing units are located on the same parcel as a single-family home. They can accommodate multigenerational families, allowing seniors to age in place or young residents to remain at home as they seek employment. Preserve and increase senior housing As CMAP projections indicate, the senior population in the Q]ZZOP]`ObWdS Q]cZR aWU\WĂ€QO\bZg U`]e ]dS` bVS \Sfb b] ! gSO`a Many area seniors will want to remain living in their communities, as well as in their current homes. Additional multi-family and single-family complexes designed to allow seniors to age in place, both rental and condominium, will be needed. Locating them near transit and shopping areas should be a priority. The Collaborative should continue to stay on top of public and private sector funding ]^^]`bc\WbWSa T]` `Sb`]Ă€bbW\U SfWabW\U V][Sa O\R \Se OUS `Sab`WQbSR RSdSZ]^[S\ba eWbV RSaWU\ SZS[S\ba O\R Ă€fbc`Sa bVOb TOQWZWbObS OUW\U W\ ^ZOQS 7b aV]cZR OZa] []\Wb]` Qc``S\b aS\W]` RS[O\R ^`STS`S\QSa T]` dO`W]ca V]caW\U ]^bW]\a <Se RSdSZ]^[S\b O\R aWU\WĂ€QO\b rehabilitation should be guided by the latest research on design for accessibility and aging in place. The Collaborative should evaluate

SUBREGIONAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

the possibility of compiling or distributing educational materials to educate aging homeowners on the costs, best practices, and funding OdOWZOPZS T]` `Sb`]ÀbbW\U Address aging multi-family properties /ZZ ÀdS Q][[c\WbWSa VOdS [cZbW TO[WZg V]caW\U Q][^ZSfSa bVOb O`S aging and need constant monitoring to make sure they remain code Q][^ZWO\b A][S ]T bVSaS Q][^ZSfSa eS`S PcWZb ]\ c\W\Q]`^]`ObSR 1]]Y 1]c\bg ZO\R bVOb eOa ZObS` O\\SfSR AcPaS_cS\b infrastructure upgrades were made combined with ongoing efforts to improve the living units. We encourage all the Collaborative communities to continue focusing on these complexes, regardless of bVSW` Z]QObW]\ @SVOPWZWbObW]\ O\R abOPWZWhObW]\ ]T bVSaS PcWZRW\Ua QO\ have positive impacts on surrounding single-family neighborhoods. The Collaborative could advocate for state and federal grant, loan, or tax credit programs designed to encourage owners to upgrade S\S`Ug STÀQWS\Qg aOTSbg ZWUVbW\U O\R À`S aOTSbg TSObc`Sa ]\ [cZbW family properties. Consideration could also be given to complete redevelopment where warranted. @Sb`]Àb SfWabW\U ReSZZW\U c\Wba O\R S\Q]c`OUS S\S`Ug STÀQWS\b V]caW\U RSdSZ]^[S\b / abcRg Q][^ZSbSR W\ Pg bVS <ObW]\OZ /aa]QWObW]\ ]T 6][S 0cWZRS`a abObSR bVOb bVS V][S ]T bVS Tcbc`S eWZZ PS a[OZZS` O\R []`S S\S`Ug STÀQWS\b bVO\ Wba Q]c\bS`^O`ba RSdSZ]^SR ]dS` bVS ZOab decade. Over the past several years, several public subsidies have been created to encourage such development. CMAP has created O\ ]\ ZW\S [O`YSb^ZOQS 3\S`Ug 7[^OQb 7ZZW\]Wa bVOb S\OPZSa aW\UZS and multi-family building owners to determine which subsidies bVSg QO\ OQQSaa b] `Sb`]Àb bVSW` V][Sa b] W\Q`SOaS S\S`Ug STÀQWS\Qg Communities should also consider reviewing their regulations to ab`SO[ZW\S bVS ^S`[WbbW\U ^`]QSaa T]` \Se RSdSZ]^[S\ba QS`bWÀSR Oa S\S`Ug STÀQWS\b c\RS` O\g ]T bVS ZSORW\U QS`bWÀQObW]\ ]`UO\WhObW]\a (Leadership in Energy and Enviromental Design [LEED], Energy AbO` SbQ Consider Live Where You Work programs BVS AbObS ]T 7ZZW\]Wa ^`]dWRSa O # QS\b bOf Q`SRWb ]\ abObS W\Q][S bOf liability for every $1 invested in programs that help employees live near their place of employment. The Collaborative should consider engaging large employers and local banks in an effort to take advantage of that incentive. /\\Sf c\W\Q]`^]`ObSR ZO\R >O`QSZa ]T c\W\Q]`^]`ObSR ZO\R SfWab W\ ]` ORXOQS\b b] OZZ ÀdS Collaborative communities. Cook County has recently announced that it wants to eliminate all unincorporated land in the County in the next ten years. Even if annexation does not proceed, the 1]ZZOP]`ObWdS aV]cZR e]`Y eWbV 1]c\bg ]TÀQWOZa b] S\ac`S PSbbS` Q]RS S\T]`QS[S\b W\ c\W\Q]`^]`ObSR O`SOa Ab`ObSUWSa eWZZ PS needed to annex this land without placing a burden on city and village taxpayers.

15

3dOZcObS bVS Q]aba O\R PS\SÀba ]T X]W\W\U bVS Cook County HOME consortium While the collaborative communities are unable to form their own consortium to access federal housing development funds under the 6=;3 ^`]U`O[ bVSg QO\ X]W\ bVS 1]]Y 1]c\bg 6=;3 1]\a]`bWc[ This would add funding to the pool from which all Cook County municipalities can draw to develop or preserve housing affordable to low-income residents. The Collaborative should consider doing bVWa Oa O eOg b] ZSdS`OUS Tc\RW\U T]` a^SQWÀQ ^`]XSQba W\ bVS Tcbc`S 3dOZcObS bVS Q]aba O\R PS\SÀba ]T X]W\W\U ]` Q`SObW\U O land trust 1;/> O\OZgaWa VOa aV]e\ bVOb bVS`S O`S c\RS`cbWZWhSR ]` dOQO\b ^O`QSZa h]\SR T]` `SaWRS\bWOZ RSdSZ]^[S\b aQObbS`SR OQ`]aa []ab ]T bVS 1]ZZOP]`ObWdS Q][[c\WbWSa BVSaS R] \]b ^`]dWRS aWU\WÀQO\b opportunities for land assembly at this time; however, in the long term the Collaborative should consider joining or creating a land b`cab Oa O [SO\a b] abOPWZWhS ^`]^S`bg dOZcSa O\R `SRSdSZ]^ ]` preserve affordable units. Alternatively, the Collaborative could Sf^Z]`S bVS ^]aaWPWZWbg ]T cbWZWhW\U bVS 1]]Y 1]c\bg :O\R 0O\Y Authority when it becomes operational, to create a strategy for maintaining and taking these properties off the market until an appropriate opportunity arises.

/ ZO\R b`cab Wa O \]\ ^`]Àb ]`UO\WhObW]\ that acquires properties through market purchase and land donations. The land trust retains the title to the land while selling homes on it at below-market value. The land is leased Ob O \][W\OZ Q]ab b] W\Q][S _cOZWÀSR PcgS`a Future affordability is maintained through a ground lease, which requires homes on the land to be either sold back to the land trust ]` b] O\]bVS` W\Q][S _cOZWÀSR PcgS` BVS resale amount is determined by a formula that provides a fair return on investment to the seller, but also ensures the property remains OTT]`ROPZS b] Tcbc`S ^c`QVOaS`a 6][S]e\S`a are responsible for paying property taxes, which are based on the formula value of the V][S BVWa `SacZba W\ aWU\WÀQO\b Q]ab aOdW\Ua b] homeowners.

16

Source: Village of Arlington Heights.

17

Housing Policy Plan: Arlington Heights Project Summary /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba VOa PSS\ O ZSORS` W\ RSdSZ]^[S\b O\R redevelopment for the last 30 years. Via careful planning, incentives, and marketing, it has created a vibrant transit oriented downtown community that has become a model for many other Q][[c\WbWSa W\ bVS aSdS\ Q]c\bg 1VWQOU] [Sb`]^]ZWbO\ O`SO 7b also has paid careful attention to its neighborhoods and has, over a period of years, created a broad range of housing types that serve the needs of residents at all income levels. 7b `S[OW\a O QVOZZS\US T]` /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba b] [OW\bOW\ O\R S\VO\QS Wba OZ`SORg acQQSaaTcZ Q][[c\Wbg @SQ]U\WhW\U the important role of housing in such efforts, the Village’s Comprehensive Plan set a goal of providing a variety of housing OZbS`\ObWdSa Pg bg^S aWhS O\R ^`WQS `O\US BVS DWZZOUS 0]O`R OZa] has among its top ten goals to “continue to explore and encourage affordable private housing, investigate availability of handicapped accessible and attainable apartments, and ensure that Arlington 6SWUVba [SSba AbObS ObbOW\OPZS V]caW\U ^S`QS\bOUS `S_cW`S[S\ba ¡ To move forward with these goals, the Village must make sure that its dwellings, most notably its multi-family rental dwellings built W\ bVS '$ a O\R '% a `S[OW\ W\ U]]R Q]\RWbW]\ 7b [cab QO`STcZZg monitor and ensure proper maintenance of its condominium projects and single-family housing stock which have, to some degree, been impacted by the foreclosure crisis that is now in its seventh year. Finally, it must carefully think through future housing expansion in the Village and make sure that any expansion meets its future projected housing needs.

BVWa `S^]`b O\OZghSa SfWabW\U Q]\RWbW]\a O\R Tcbc`S \SSRa ]T /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba O\R W\QZcRSa `SQ][[S\RObW]\a T]QcaSR ]\( ’ Preserving the Village’s multi-family housing stock. ’ Addressing condominium foreclosures through local and regional efforts. ’ 3f^Z]`W\U WT O\R V]e bVS Q][[c\Wbg aV]cZR U`]e ’ Continuing to redevelop downtown. ’ Ab`S\UbVS\W\U O\R Sf^O\RW\U Z]QOZ V]caW\U ^`]U`O[a

18

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

Existing Conditions Demographic and Economic Trends

Arlington Heights jobs, 2006-10

/a bVS ]\Zg Q][[c\Wbg b] b]cQV OZZ ]T Wba ^O`b\S`a /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba sits at the geographic center of the Collaborative. The Village is P]`RS`SR Pg 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS b] bVS \]`bV) EVSSZW\U >`]a^SQb 6SWUVba O\R ;]c\b >`]a^SQb b] bVS SOab) 3ZY 5`]dS DWZZOUS b] bVS a]cbV) O\R Rolling Meadows and Palatine to the west. The Villageโ s population has remained fairly stable over the last RSQORS Ob O`]c\R %# `SaWRS\ba BVS 1VWQOU] ;Sb`]^]ZWbO\ Agency for Planning (CMAP) produced population and household ^`]XSQbW]\a Oa ^O`b ]T 5= B= " bVS aSdS\ Q]c\bg `SUW]\ยนa comprehensive plan for sustainable prosperity for the next 30 years.2 BVSaS ร Uc`Sa W\RWQObS bVOb WT 5= B= " Wa W[^ZS[S\bSR O\R because of the Villageโ s numerous assets, the Villageโ s population Q]cZR `WaS b] &$ #' W\ " O\ W\Q`SOaS ]T `SaWRS\ba 3 AcQV O\ W\Q`SOaS e]cZR `S_cW`S `]cUVZg " " ORRWbW]\OZ ReSZZW\U c\Wba While any decisions regarding if and how to grow are local, the projected demand bodes well for strength of the Villageโ s long term housing market.

2006

2010

PROFESSIONAL, SCIENTIFIC, AND TECHNICAL SERVICES

HEALTH CARE AND SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

RETAIL TRADE

ADMINISTRATION AND SUPPORT, WASTE MANAGEMENT

EDUCATIONAL SERVICES

WHOLESALE TRADE

ACCOMMODATION AND FOOD SERVICES

Population and change in population, 2000 and 2010 Population, 2000 (Census)

76,031

Population, 2010 (Census)

75,101

Change, 2000-10

-930

Change as %, 2000-10

-1.2%

GO TO 2040 Projection, 2040

86,059

MANUFACTURING

ARTS, ENTERTAINMENT, AND RECREATION

OTHER SERVICES

Source: U.S. Census and CMAP GO TO 2040 projections.

0%

BVS b]bOZ \c[PS` ]T X]Pa W\ /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba W\Q`SOaSR Pg aWf ^S`QS\b PSbeSS\ $ O\R BVS W\Q`SOaS eOa R`WdS\ Pg bVS be] ZO`USab Z]QOZ W\Rcab`WSa( VSOZbV QO`S O\R OR[W\Wab`ObW]\ 1][PW\SR bVSaS PcaW\SaaSa OQQ]c\b T]` OZ[]ab "! ^S`QS\b ]T Z]QOZ S[^Z]g[S\b ;OX]` Z]QOZ S[^Z]gS`a acQV Oa <]`bVeSab 1][[c\Wbg 6]a^WbOZ /ZSfWO\ 0`]bVS`a O\R :cbVS`O\ 6][S T]` bVS /USR `Sร SQb bVS importance of these sectors.

2 See http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/2040. 3 See the Appendix for more information about these projections.

5%

10%

15%

20%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, LED Data, On-the-Map.

BOf W\Q`S[S\b ร \O\QW\U B74 RWab`WQba ^ZOg O\ W[^]`bO\b `]ZS W\ bVS DWZZOUSยนa STT]`ba b] `SRSdSZ]^ YSg O`SOa eWbV ร dS b]bOZ RWab`WQba established by the Village. Two areas, covering northern and southern downtown, expired within the past decade. Arlington 6SWUVba [OW\bOW\a bV`SS OQbWdS B74 RWab`WQba B74 ! eOa caSR b] `SRSdSZ]^ bVS Q]`\S` ]T /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba @]OR O\R @O\R @]OR eWbV # a_cO`S TSSb ]T `SbOWZ a^OQS B74 " Q]dS`a bVS \]`bVSOabS`\ Q]`\S` ]T 5]ZT @]OR O\R /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba @]OR W\QZcRW\U 7\bS`\ObW]\OZ >ZOhO) Sf^O\aW]\a ]T bVWa RWab`WQb O`S OZZ]eW\U bVS DWZZOUS b] ^c`acS bVS `SRSdSZ]^[S\b ]T bVS T]`[S` /`ZW\ 5]ZT >ZOhO O\R 9WbWYORO @SabOc`O\b B74 # eOa SabOPZWaVSR W\ # T]` bVS `SRSdSZ]^[S\b ]T bVS B]e\ 1]c\b`g O\R A]cbV^]W\b aV]^^W\U centers.

HOUSING POLICY PLAN: ARLINGTON HEIGHTS

19

Where Do Arlington Heights’ Workers Live? AW[WZO` \c[PS`a ]T e]`YS`a Q][S T`][ /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba O\R Chicago. That more local workers come from the Village than 1VWQOU] [OYSa /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba RWabW\QbWdS P]bV eWbVW\ bVS 1]ZZOP]`ObWdS O\R bVS `SUW]\ `Sà SQbW\U Wba ab`]\U Z]QOZ S[^Z]g[S\b POaS =T bVS ÀdS Q][[c\WbWSa ]\Zg >OZObW\S TSObc`Sa O aW[WZO` a^ZWb People from nearby communities, such as Palatine, Mount Prospect,

O\R AQVOc[Pc`U OZa] Q][[cbS b] bVS DWZZOUS ]T /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba 5S]U`O^VWQOZZg ^S]^ZS e]`YW\U W\ /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba Q][S T`][ OZZ ]dS` bVS `SUW]\ BVS RW`SQbW]\ ]T b`OdSZ `SĂ SQba bVS SOaS ]T OQQSaa b] /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba T`][ ]bVS` RW`SQbW]\a PSQOcaS ]T ;Sb`O 7ZZW\]Wa @]cbS #! O\R 7 '

Where do Arlington Heights’ workers live, 2010?

Where do Arlington Heights’ workers live? Job counts byy distance/direction in 2010, all workers

10% N 10%

ARLINGTON HEIGHTS

9% NW

9%

CHICAGO

5%

PALATINE

3%

MOUNT PROSPECT

3%

SCHAUMBURG

3%

HOFFMAN ESTATES

NE

5%

30%

6,000 4,000

10,000 8,000

3% 3%

2,000

W

E

3%

12%

25%

REMAINDER OF COOK COUNTY

12%

LAKE COUNTY

30%

ALL OTHER LOCATIONS

SW

SE

25% S

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, LED Data, On-the-Map.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, LED Data, On-the-Map.

20

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

Where Do Arlington Heights’ Residents Work? 0g TO` bVS ZO`USab \c[PS`a ]T `SaWRS\ba e]`Y W\ SWbVS` 1VWQOU] # ^S`QS\b ]` bVS DWZZOUS ]T /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba " ^S`QS\b BVS POZO\QSR W[^]`bO\QS ]T P]bV /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba O\R 1VWQOU] Wa unique among Collaborative members, as the Village of Arlington

6SWUVba TSObc`Sa Pg TO` bVS VWUVSab ^S`QS\bOUS ]T Wba `SaWRS\ba working locally. Residents traveling longer distances to work likely commute to the south or southeast, with most other local employment locations closely encircling the Village.

Where do Arlington Heights’ residents work, 2010?

Where do Arlington Heights’ residents work? Job counts by distance/direction in 2010, all workers

15% N 15%

CHICAGO

14%

ARLINGTON HEIGHTS

NW

14%

NE 12,000

17% 4%

SCHAUMBURG

3%

ELK GROVE VILLAGE

3%

MOUNT PROSPECT

3%

PALATINE

29%

REMAINDER OF COOK COUNTY

12%

LAKE COUNTY

17%

ALL OTHER LOCATIONS

12%

29%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, LED Data, On-the-Map.

7,200

4% 3%

2,400

W

E

3% 3%

SW

SE

S

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, LED Data, On-the-Map.

21

HOUSING POLICY PLAN: ARLINGTON HEIGHTS

Current Housing Analysis BVS [OX]`Wbg #% ^S`QS\b ]T V]caW\U c\Wba O`S aW\UZS TO[WZg V][Sa ;cZbW TO[WZg c\Wba eVWQV Q][^`WaS !# ^S`QS\b ]T Z]QOZ c\Wba W\QZcRS SdS`gbVW\U T`][ Rc^ZSfSa b] # c\Wb Q][^ZSfSa AW\UZS TO[WZg V][Sa bS\R b] PS ]e\S` ]QQc^WSR ;cZbW TO[WZg c\Wba ac^^Zg /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba eWbV &% ^S`QS\b ]T Wba `S\bOZ ab]QY /a an occupant’s income rises, so does the likelihood of ownership. BVS [OX]`Wbg ]T /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba `S\bOZ c\Wba O`S ]QQc^WSR Pg V]caSV]ZRa [OYW\U ZSaa bVO\ 6]caSV]ZRa SO`\W\U ZSaa bVO\ # O`S []`S ZWYSZg b] `S\b bVO\ ]e\ Like many other Collaborative communities and the region, the \c[PS` ]T /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba V]caSV]ZRa ^OgW\U []`S bVO\ ! percent of their income on housing increased in the last decade. The number of cost-burdened owners increased from 21 percent in 2000 to 32 percent in 2010. This rise among owners was felt across all age U`]c^a bV]cUV ^O`bWQcZO`Zg T]` V]caSV]ZRS`a ]dS` !# Oa bVSg [OYS up close to 90 percent of all Village homeowners. The proportion ]T Q]ab Pc`RS\SR `S\bS` V]caSV]ZRa W\Q`SOaSR T`][ !# ^S`QS\b b] "! ^S`QS\b ZO`USZg PSQOcaS ]T O R]cPZW\U W\ bVS \c[PS` ]T `S\bS`a PSbeSS\ !# O\R $# gSO`a ]ZR ^OgW\U []`S bVO\ ! ^S`QS\b ]T bVSW` income on housing costs. The increasing number of cost-burdened owners and renters in /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba ]dS` bVS ZOab RSQORS Wa Q]\aWabS\b eWbV \ObW]\OZ b`S\Ra /QQ]`RW\U b] O\OZgaWa Pg 6O`dO`R C\WdS`aWbg ÂśbVS `SQSaaW]\­ did little to reduce housing outlays for many Americans,â€? due in part to declining incomes, slow employment growth, and more stringent credit requirements."

What is “Affordable Housing?� What constitutes affordable housing varies from household to household, as the measure is relative. For this report, the following U.S. Census guidelines were used: š “Affordable housing� is housing that costs no more than 30 percent of household income (including utilities, insurance, and taxes). š “Unaffordable housing� is housing that costs between 30 percent and 50 percent of household income. š “Severely unaffordable housing� is housing that costs more than 50 percent of household income.

Arlington Heights housing type by tenure OWNER-OCCUPIED 18,000 16,000

RENTER-OCCUPIED

641 16,638

14,000 12,000 6,063

10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 295 2,000 1,981 0

SINGLE FAMILY

TOWNHOME

4,593

MULTIFAMILY

Source: CMAP analysis of American Community Survey 2006-10.

4 Joint Center for Housing Studies. (June, 2012). State of the Nation’s Housing 2012. Harvard University.

0 0 OTHER

22

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

Arlington Heights tenure by units in structure

Arlington Heights tenure by household income, in number of occupied units

OWNER-OCCUPIED

RENTER-OCCUPIED

OWNER-OCCUPIED

RENTER-OCCUPIED

1 (DETACHED) 6,000

1 (ATTACHED) 2 UNITS

5,000

3 OR 4 UNITS 4,000

5 TO 9 UNITS 10 TO 19 UNITS

3,000

20 TO 49 UNITS 2,000

50 OR MORE UNITS MOBILE HOME

1,000

BOAT, RV, VAN, ETC. 0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000

0

<15k

<35k

<50k

Source: American Community Survey 2006-10.

Source: CMAP analysis of American Community Survey 2006-10.

Arlington Heights rental and owner housing affordability OWNER HOUSING

11%

RENTAL HOUSING

21%

21% 22%

57%

68%

AFFORDABLE

UNAFFORDABLE

Source: American Community Survey 2006-10.

SEVERELY UNAFFORDABLE

<75k

<100k

<150k

150k+

HOUSING POLICY PLAN: ARLINGTON HEIGHTS

23

Current Ownership Housing

Current Rental Housing

4]` ]e\S`a SO`\W\U PSbeSS\ !# O\R bVS \c[PS` ]T available units more than covers the number of households. Owner units for households at the lower end of this income range are only affordable to these income groups if the owner does not carry a []`bUOUS C\Wba OTT]`ROPZS b] VWUVS` W\Q][S V]caSV]ZRa bg^WQOZZg carry a mortgage. The likelihood of owning a home with or without a []`bUOUS RS^S\Ra W\ ^O`b ]\ OUS =dS` $ ^S`QS\b ]T ]e\S`a eWbV]cb O []`bUOUS O`S ]ZRS` bVO\ $# /^^`]fW[ObSZg $' ^S`QS\b ]T ]e\S`a eWbV O []`bUOUS O`S g]c\US` bVO\ ## 6WUVS` W\Q][S ]e\S`a ]TbS\ QV]]aS b] Âś[]dS R]e\ ¡ ]QQc^gW\U ZSaa costly housing and spending less than 30 percent of their income on housing costs. Lower income households must “move up,â€? spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs and becoming cost burdened. People moving up the income range include the growing number of cost-burdened owners.

The number of units affordable to a middle income household O\\cOZ V]caSV]ZR W\Q][Sa PSbeSS\ !# O\R # ^S` year) helps ensure that the Village’s rental stock meets the income \SSRa ]T `SaWRS\ba 5O^a V]eSdS` SfWab Ob Z]eS` O\R VWUVS` W\Q][S levels. The largest differences are for households earning less than # O\R SO`\W\U b] # 6]eSdS` eVWZS VWUVS` income renters can choose to move down and occupy units that cost less than they can afford, lower income renters must move up and become cost burdened. Lower income residents who are forced to move up help explain the increasing number of costPc`RS\SR `S\bS`a ]dS` bVS ZOab RSQORS 0OaSR ]\ $ /[S`WQO\ 1][[c\Wbg Ac`dSg /1A RObO ]dS` VOZT ]T OZZ Q]ab Pc`RS\SR `S\bS`a W\ /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba O`S PSbeSS\ !# O\R $" AS\W]`a `S\bS`a O`S RWa^`]^]`bW]\ObSZg ZWYSZg b] PS Q]ab Pc`RS\SR [OYW\U c^ % " ^S`QS\b ]T OZZ `S\bS`a Pcb ! " ^S`QS\b ]T OZZ Q]ab Pc`RS\SR `S\bS`a

Arlington Heights comparison of owner household incomes with occupied units affordable at each income level

Arlington Heights comparison of rental household incomes with occupied units affordable at each income level

ACTUAL HOUSEHOLDS AT INCOME LEVEL

ACTUAL HOUSEHOLDS AT INCOME LEVEL

ESTIMATED OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS AFFORDABLE AT INCOME LEVEL (WITHOUT MORTGAGE)

ESTIMATED OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS AFFORDABLE AT INCOME LEVEL 3,000

ESTIMATED OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS AFFORDABLE AT INCOME LEVEL (WITH MORTGAGE) 7,000

2,500 6,000 2,000 5,000 4,000

1,500

3,000 1,000 2,000 500 1,000 0

<$15

<$35

<$50

<$75

<$100

<$150

$150+

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese Envision Tomorrow Balanced Housing Model using ACS 2006-10 inputs.

0

<$15

<$35

<$50

<$75

<$100

<$150

$150+

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese Envision Tomorrow Balanced Housing Model using ACS 2006-10 inputs.

24

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

Today’s Market Segments and Market Preferences B]]Za RSdSZ]^SR Pg O ZSORW\U eSZZ Y\]e\ [O`YSb `SaSO`QV Ă€`[ 3\dW`]\[S\bOZ AgabS[a @SaSO`QV 7\abWbcbS 3A@7 eS`S caSR to enrich the understanding of the housing types preferred by TO[WZWSa bVOb ZWdS W\ /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba b]ROg BVS POaWQ c\Wb ]T bVS 3A@7 1][[c\Wbg BO^Sab`g agabS[ Wa bVS \SWUVP]`V]]R POaSR ]\ C A 1S\aca PZ]QY U`]c^a 3A@7 VOa QZOaaWĂ€SR SdS`g \SWUVP]`V]]R W\ bVS Q]c\b`g Oa ]\S ]T $# [O`YSb aSU[S\ba BVSaS aSU[S\ba O`S bVS\ Q][PW\SR W\b] ]\S ]T :WTS;]RS U`]c^a ASU[S\ba O\R U`]c^a O`S OaaWU\SR b] \SWUVP]`V]]Ra Pg a]`bW\U []`S bVO\ $ attributes including income, employment, home value, housing type, education, household composition, age, and other key RSbS`[W\O\ba ]T Q]\ac[S` PSVOdW]` <SWUVP]`V]]Ra eWbV bVS []ab similar characteristics are combined, while neighborhoods showing divergent characteristics are separated. 4]c` U`]c^a W\b] eVWQV OZ[]ab '% ^S`QS\b ]T /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVbaš V]caSV]ZRa TOZZ eS`S WRS\bWĂ€SR( 6WUV A]QWSbg C^aQOZS /dS\cSa AS\W]` AbgZSa O\R A]Z] /Qba

BVS ZO`USab U`]c^ Âś6WUV A]QWSbg ¡ O`S VWUVS` W\Q][S V]caSV]ZRa RWabW\UcWaVSR Pg bVSW` W\bS`Sab W\ aW\UZS TO[WZg V][Sa ÂśC^aQOZS /dS\cSa¡ O`S OZa] OTĂ cS\b V]caSV]ZRa Pcb bVSg ^`STS` O dO`WSbg of housing types and invest in their homes through remodeling or ZO\RaQO^W\U ÂśAS\W]` AbgZSa¡ `SaWRS\ba VOdS V]caW\U ^`STS`S\QSa as diverse as their circumstances, residing in single-family homes, `SbW`S[S\b V][Sa ]` VWUV `WaSa 4W\OZZg ÂśA]Z] /Qba¡ O`S US\S`OZZg young single or roommate households who prefer a mobile, urban lifestyle and denser housing options. What does this mean for the future housing needs of Arlington 6SWUVba- 4W`ab DWZZOUS V]caSV]ZRa O`S OZ[]ab S_cOZ W\ bVSW` RSaW`S of whether or not to live in a compact neighborhood (e.g. containing a range of housing types that encourage walking to retail stores, neighborhood amenities, other homes, and transit lines). About half of current residents have at least a moderate propensity to live in a compact neighborhood while half are not interested in living W\ O Q][^OQb \SWUVP]`V]]R ASQ]\RZg bVS U`]c^a VSZ^ Q]\Ă€`[ O\R RSS^S\ W\T]`[ObW]\ UZSO\SR T`][ C A 1S\aca RObO BVS 6WUV A]QWSbg O\R C^aQOZS /dS\cSa U`]c^a `SĂ SQb bVS aWhOPZS aW\UZS TO[WZg ]e\S` [O`YSb W\ bVS DWZZOUS eVWZS bVS AS\W]` AbgZSa O\R A]Z] /Qba U`]c^a `SĂ SQb V]caSV]ZRa aSSYW\U RS\aS` V]caW\U ]^bW]\a T]` P]bV renters and owners. Finally, while not an exact guide to the future, these groups can also be useful when planning for future housing needs, as will be explored in subsequent sections.

Arlington Heights Lifemode groups LIFEMODE GROUPS High Society Upscale Avenues Senior Styles Solo Acts

INCOME

FAMILY TYPE

AVERAGE AGE

% OF TOTAL

HOUSING TYPES

TENURE

Upper

Married Couples

43.4

47.1%

Single-family

Own

Middle-Upper

Mixed

38.1

25.2%

Single-family, townhomes, multi-unit

Own

Middle

Married no-kids

50.0

13.2%

Multi-unit and single-family

Own/rent

Middle-Upper

Singles-shared

31.4

11.4%

Multi-unit, townhomes, single-family

Rent/own

Source: CMAP analysis of ESRI Community Tapestry Segments.

HOUSING POLICY PLAN: ARLINGTON HEIGHTS

25

Projecting Future Housing Needs While all of the previous information describes the current housing [O`YSb W\ /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba bVS PSab V]caW\U ^ZO\\W\U bOYSa into account those who might live in the community in the future. Census data, CMAP’s local population and household projections for bVS gSO` " O\R bVS 3A@7 BO^Sab`g [O`YSb aSU[S\b RObO OZZ]e T]` a][S `SOZWabWQ SabW[ObSa ]T eV] eWZZ eO\b b] ZWdS W\ /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba over the next 30 years and what kinds of housing would allow the Village to meet the needs of current and future residents.

Arlington Heights 2010 households and housing stock compared with 2040 owner demand

Future Ownership Needs

6,000

7b Wa ^`]XSQbSR bVOb OZZ W\Q][S ZSdSZa Q]cZR aSS []`S V]caSV]ZRa ]dS` bVS \Sfb ! gSO`a 7\ b]bOZ /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba e]cZR \SSR & ^S`QS\b []`S ]e\S` c\Wba W\ " b] OQQ][[]RObS OZZ bVS ^]aaWPZS growth. The Village’s current stock of units for households earning # b] !# O\R %# b] Q]cZR [SSb bVS ^`]XSQbSR growth. The largest unit shortages would be for households SO`\W\U []`S bVO\ # bV]cUV Oa \]bSR PST]`S a][S ]T bVSaS households may choose to move down. Future population growth may increase the number of cost-burdened low- and moderateincome households if the housing stock does not grow and change with the population.

OCCUPIED HOUSING STOCK AFFORDABLE AT 30% OF INCOME (2010) DEMAND AT INCOME LEVEL (2010) PROJECTED DEMAND AT INCOME LEVEL (2040) 7,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

The age groups that may drive housing demand in the future depend ]\ W\Q][S 7\Q`SOaSR RS[O\R Ob VWUVS` W\Q][S ZSdSZa eWZZ PS O[]\U ]e\S`a OUS # b] "" O\R "# b] $" EVWZS c\Wba T]` V]caSV]ZRa OUS "# b] $" eWZZ ZWYSZg Q]\bW\cS b] `Sà SQb bVS 6WUV A]QWSbg aSU[S\b ]e\S`a OUS # b] "" [Og PS P]bV C^aQOZS /dS\cSa O\R A]Z] /Qba S[^VOaWhW\U bVS \SSR T]` ]e\S` V]caW\U ]^bW]\a PSg]\R aW\UZS TO[WZg c\Wba BVS ^`]XSQbSR \SSR T]` c\Wba W\ bVS ZSaa bVO\ # income category is likely attributable to the community’s aging ^]^cZObW]\ O\R bVS \c[PS` ]T aS\W]`a =dS` $ ^S`QS\b ]T Tcbc`S ]e\S`a SO`\W\U ZSaa bVO\ # O`S ^`]XSQbSR b] PS ]dS` $# `Sà SQbW\U O ^]`bW]\ ]T bVS AS\W]` AbgZSa aSU[S\b

0

<$15

<$35

<$50

<$75

<$100

<$150

$150+

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese Envision Tomorrow Balanced Housing Model using ACS 2006-10 and CMAP GO TO 2040 household forecast inputs.

Arlington Heights projected owner demand by age of household <25 6,000

25-44

45-64

65+

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

<15k

<35k

<50k

<75k

<100k

<150k

150k+

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese Envision Tomorrow Balanced Housing Model using ACS 2006-10 and CMAP GO TO 2040 household forecast inputs.

26

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

Future Rental Needs

Arlington Heights 2010 households and housing stock compared with 2040 rental demand Future rental households could come from across the income a^SQb`c[ W\QZcRW\U VWUVS` W\Q][S V]caSV]ZRa 5WdS\ bVS DWZZOUSยนa OCCUPIED HOUSING STOCK AFFORDABLE AT 30% OF INCOME (2010) current rental stock, the greatest need for future units would be for DEMAND AT INCOME LEVEL (2010) V]caSV]ZRa SO`\W\U ZSaa bVO\ !# BVSaS `S\bS`a O`S OZ`SORg O[]\U bVS Q]ab Pc`RS\SR V]caSV]ZRa a_cSShSR ]dS` bVS ZOab RSQORS PROJECTED DEMAND AT INCOME LEVEL (2040) `S\bW\U c\Wba OTT]`ROPZS b] ^S]^ZS SO`\W\U !# b] # BVS 3,000 Q]`S ]T bVS Tcbc`S `S\bOZ [O`YSb W\ /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba Wa V]caSV]ZRa OUS # b] "" eWbV aS\W]`a ^ZOgW\U O []`S W[^]`bO\b `]ZS Ob Z]eS` income levels. The bulk of renters currently within this age range 2,500 W\ /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba O`S A]Z] /Qba ^`STS``W\U [cZbW TO[WZg O\R b]e\V][S `S\bOZ ]^bW]\a /P]cb "# ^S`QS\b ]T Tcbc`S `S\bS`a SO`\W\U ZSaa bVO\ # O`S ^`]XSQbSR b] PS ]dS` $# `Sร SQbW\U O ^]`bW]\ ]T 2,000 bVS AS\W]` AbgZSa aSU[S\b eWbV `S\bS`a US\S`OZZg ^`STS``W\U [cZbW family options. 1,500

1,000

500

0

<$15

<$35

<$50

<$75

<$100

<$150

$150+

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese Envision Tomorrow Balanced Housing Model using ACS 2006-10 and CMAP GO TO 2040 household forecast inputs.

Arlington Heights projected renter demand by age of household <25

25-44

45-64

65+

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

<15k

<35k

<50k

<75k

<100k

<150k

150k+

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese Envision Tomorrow Balanced Housing Model using ACS 2006-10 and CMAP GO TO 2040 household forecast inputs.

HOUSING POLICY PLAN: ARLINGTON HEIGHTS

Housing Demand by Type of Unit When combining projections for new owners and renters in /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba bVS`S Wa ]\S ^]aaWPZS ^WQbc`S ]T RS[O\R T]` ORRWbW]\OZ V]caW\U c\Wba Pg bg^S W\ " EVOb S[S`USa Wa O ¶POZO\QSR V]caW\U· ^`]ÀZS eWbV RS[O\R T]` OP]cb #$% ORRWbW]\OZ aW\UZS TO[WZg V][Sa %% b]e\V][Sa O\R "#! [cZbW TO[WZg V][Sa PSbeSS\ \]e O\R " /a \]bSR ^`SdW]caZg bVSaS ÀUc`Sa O`S POaSR on projections; real growth may be more or less than estimated and the Village can choose whether it wishes to plan for any of this estimated growth. The ultimate decision regarding if and how to grow is a local one. Arlington Heights future balanced housing profile INCREMENTAL UNITS (INCLUDES NEW UNITS, REHABILITATED VACANT UNITS AND VACANCIES, 2010-2040) OCCUPIED HOUSING SUPPLY ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, 2010

12,000

Single-family homes will remain in demand. 2,453

623 12,074

10,647

10,000

8,000

6,000

944 5,174

4,000 772 2,000

0

2,273

LARGE LOT SF

SMALL LOT SF

TOWNHOME

MULTIFAMILY

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese Envision Tomorrow Balanced Housing Model using ACS 2006-10 and CMAP GO TO 2040 household forecast inputs.

Source: Village of Arlington Heights.

27

28

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

Capacity for Growth Estimated future population and household growth is only onehalf of the equation in considering future housing needs. As a community with numerous assets, it is understandable why many ^S]^ZS eO\b b] ZWdS W\ /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba \]e O\R W\ bVS Tcbc`S 0cb to plan for future households and housing, it is also important to look at capacity, particularly for a built-out community. To understand the Village’s ability to accommodate projected growth, WT RSaW`SR be] YSg a]c`QSa ]T QO^OQWbg eS`S `SdWSeSR( RSdSZ]^[S\b redevelopment and vacancy.#

Arlington Heights maximum capacity by unit type

4%

1% 1%

4%

LARGE LOT SF

1%

SMALL LOT SF

1%

TOWNHOME

Development/Redevelopment Analysis BVS SfbS\b b] eVWQV /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba Q]cZR U`]e POaSR ]\ Qc``S\b land use regulations, development approvals, and recent planning STT]`ba eOa O\OZghSR BVS b]bOZ a_cO`S T]]bOUS ]T dOQO\b O\R `SRSdSZ]^OPZS ZO\R W\ /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba eOa QOZQcZObSR Pg `SdWSeW\U Cook County Assessor data (where the land value is greater than bVS W[^`]dS[S\b dOZcS BVS\ bVS Q][[c\Wbg¹a Qc``S\b h]\W\U O\R RSdSZ]^[S\b abO\RO`Ra eS`S O^^ZWSR b] bV]aS ÀUc`Sa b] QOZQcZObS V]e [O\g c\Wba Q]cZR PS PcWZb W\ /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba UWdS\ bVS a_cO`S T]]bOUSa ]T dOQO\b O\R `SRSdSZ]^OPZS ZO\R eWbVW\ bVS dO`W]ca h]\W\U districts. This analysis was done in the aggregate and did not involve O\OZgaWa ]T a^SQWÀQ ^O`QSZa /RRWbW]\OZZg `SQS\b O^^`]dOZa eS`S reviewed, such as Arlington Downs and subarea plans, including the 6WQY]`g 9S\aW\Ub]\ /`SO >ZO\ b] WRS\bWTg ORRWbW]\OZ RSdSZ]^[S\b ^]bS\bWOZ 0OaSR ]\ bVWa Q]ZZSQbWdS O\OZgaWa Wb eOa SabW[ObSR bVOb bVS Q][[c\Wbg VOa bVS QO^OQWbg T]` O^^`]fW[ObSZg " $$' \Se ReSZZW\U c\Wba Q][^O`SR b] bVS " %' c\Wba bVOb e]cZR PS \SSRSR aV]cZR bVS Village decide to plan for the estimated increase in its population ^]aaWPZS Pg "

94%

MULTIFAMILY

94%

Source: CMAP analysis of Arlington Heights zoning ordinance, local development approvals, subarea plans and Cook County assessor data.

Maximum capacity by unit type TYPE

UNITS

Large Lot SF (>8,000 s.f.)

202

Small Lot SF (<8,000 s.f.)

50

Townhome

44

Multi-family Mobile Home/Other TOTAL

4,373 4,669

Source: CMAP analysis of Arlington Heights zoning ordinance, local development approvals, subarea plans, and Cook County assessor data.

5 See the Appendix for more information about the methodology.

HOUSING POLICY PLAN: ARLINGTON HEIGHTS

Vacancy Analysis 0SQOcaS ]T bVS Qc``S\b V]caW\U [O`YSb [O\g V][Sa \]e dOQO\b [Og \]b PS a] W\ bVS Tcbc`S OZZ]eW\U ^S]^ZS b] []dS W\b] /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba eWbV]cb PcWZRW\U \Se c\Wba /QQ]`RW\U b] $ /1A SabW[ObSa /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba VOa O^^`]fW[ObSZg $&" dOQO\b V]caW\U c\Wba eVWQV Wa OP]cb # $ ^S`QS\b ]T OZZ V][Sa W\ bVS DWZZOUS <]`[OZ Z]\U bS`[ dOQO\Qg `ObSa T]` O ab`]\U Q][[c\Wbg O`S % " ^S`QS\b T]` `S\bOZ c\Wba O\R # ^S`QS\b T]` ]e\S` c\Wba $ 7\ O VSOZbVg [O`YSb bVS DWZZOUS e]cZR ]\Zg VOdS O^^`]fW[ObSZg &$$ dOQO\b c\Wba BVS`ST]`S & & Qc``S\bZg dOQO\b c\Wba Q]cZR PS ]QQc^WSR W\ bVS Tcbc`S Oa /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba U`]ea This capacity would allow the Village to accommodate about 17 percent of the projected growth, or about 1,900 new residents. Arlington Heights breakdown of current vacant units VACANT UNITS IN HEALTHY MARKET CURRENT VACANT UNITS TO BE OCCUPIED 2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0 Source: CMAP analysis of ACS 2006-10.

6 See ^jjf1&&mmm%`Z^i%^XhlXh[%\[k&i_j\i&`Z^i%^XhlXh[%\[k&Ã’b\i&m'.$.%f[].

Much of the Village’s development potential is in multi-family units. Source: Village of Arlington Heights.

29

30

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

Future Housing Conclusions 1][PW\SR dOQO\Qg O\R RSdSZ]^[S\b `SRSdSZ]^[S\b e]cZR completely cover the projected growth. While these resources allow the Village to capture all future residents who might want b] ZWdS W\ /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba bVS 5= B= " ^`]XSQbW]\a ]\ eVWQV these numbers are based are only estimates of future population; real growth may be more or less than projected. Therefore, policy makers are encouraged to use these statistics as a guide, focusing on the relative number of single family, multi-family, and townhome c\Wba bVOb b]USbVS` `SĂ SQb O POZO\QSR V]caW\U [O`YSb eVS\ considering if and how to grow. Arlington Heights demand vs. vacancy and capacity by housing type, units 2010-40 DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY (2010) VACANT UNITS (2010) ESTIMATED NEED FOR UNITS (2040) 4,500

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

While local planning provides more than enough capacity for multi-family units, accommodating more single-family homes would require changes to local codes.

1,000

Source: Village of Arlington Heights.

500

0 LARGE LOT SF SMALL LOT SF

TOWNHOME

MULTIFAMILY

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese Envision Tomorrow Balanced Housing Model, Cook County Property Assessor data, and U.S. Census Bureau inputs.

31

HOUSING POLICY PLAN: ARLINGTON HEIGHTS

Sustainability 7\ % bVS 1S\bS` T]` <SWUVP]`V]]R BSQV\]Z]Ug 1<B ^`]RcQSR O\ S\S`Ug O\R S[WaaW]\a ^`]ÀZS T]` /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba Oa ^O`b ]T bVS ;c\WQW^OZ 3\S`Ug >`]ÀZS >`]XSQb /QQ]`RW\U b] bVS `S^]`b bVS DWZZOUS S[WbbSR O\ SabW[ObSR $ $ [Sb`WQ b]\a ;B ]T QO`P]\ dioxide (CO2e) per capita, approximately eight percent more than bVS 1]]Y 1]c\bg S[WaaW]\a ^S` QO^WbO " &$ ;B 1= S EWbV ' percent of local emissions coming from electricity, natural gas, and b`O\a^]`bObW]\ O\g T]`eO`R bVW\YW\U V]caW\U ^ZO\ aV]cZR O\OZghS these areas. The table highlights residential natural gas and energy usage in the Village and Cook County in 2007. At that time, the average Arlington 6SWUVba V]caSV]ZR a^S\b ZSaa ]\ S\S`Ug Q]aba bVO\ bVS OdS`OUS 1]]Y County household due to lower natural gas usage. One key part of Z]QOZ S\S`Ug caOUS Wa bVS V][S VSObW\U a]c`QS 0OaSR ]\ RObO T`][ bVS $ /1A \Obc`OZ UOa Wa bVS R][W\O\b Z]QOZ V][S VSObW\U a]c`QS caSR Pg &" ^S`QS\b ]T V]caSV]ZRa 3ZSQb`WQWbg ^`]dWRSa VSOb for a larger percentage of renters than owners (33 percent vs. 8 percent). /QQ]`RW\U b] % 1<B RObO /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba OdS`OUSR O VWUVS` number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per household than Cook 1]c\bg $ $&# dS`aca " %" `Sa^SQbWdSZg 0SQOcaS ]T bVS RWTTS`S\QS W\ [WZSOUS /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba `SaWRS\ba ^Og O^^`]fW[ObSZg ' more per month in transportation costs than the average county V]caSV]ZR POaSR ]\ bVS Qc``S\b 7\bS`\OZ @SdS\cS AS`dWQS 7@A mileage reimbursement rate. Research by Reid Ewing and others W\ bVS 8]c`\OZ ]T C`PO\ >ZO\\W\U O\R 2SdSZ]^[S\b VOa aV]e\ bVOb bVS PWUUSab TOQb]` W\ `SRcQW\U D;B Wa T`][ œ^cbbW\U ]TÀQSa aV]^a restaurants, residences, and other codependent activities in close proximity to each other.�7 As discussed previously, the number of cost burdened households W\ /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba VOa W\Q`SOaSR Pg # ^S`QS\b ]dS` bVS ^Oab decade and, depending on how the Village responds to projected Tcbc`S RS[O\R Q]cZR Q]\bW\cS b] W\Q`SOaS 3\S`Ug STÀQWS\Qg O\R sustainability efforts can help mitigate rising housing costs. The Village’s municipal aggregation program, which may offer residents low electricity rates, could help cost burdened renters and owners, Oa QO\ O Q][[Wb[S\b b] W[^ZS[S\bW\U S\S`Ug STÀQWS\b RSaWU\a as part of rehabilitation and new construction. Finally, a focus on compact neighborhoods and transit oriented development, such as bVS RSdSZ]^[S\ba W\ R]e\b]e\ /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba ]TTS`a `SaWRS\ba ways to reduce transportation costs.

. 8c\h_ZXd JeZ_\jo e] :_l_b <dĂś_d\\hi% KhX]Ă’Z >\d\hXj\[ Yo D_n\[$Li\ ;\l\befc\dji Ă… J_n$ Region Study Using Consistent Built Environmental Measures. Journal of Urban Planning, October 2010.

Housing and Transportation @d h\Z\dj o\Xhi# :EK [\l\bef\[ Xd Xbj\hdXj_l\ mXo je [\Ă’d\ “affordable housingâ€? as housing which costs no more than 45 percent of both housing and transportation costs. According to Ă’Ăľkh\i ]hec :EK# (- f\hZ\dj e] jof_ZXb h\Ăľ_edXb ^eki\^eb[i X 2.73 person household earning $60,289) would pay less than 45 percent of their household income on housing and transportation costs combined when living in Arlington Heights. This alternate c\Xikh\ Ă’d[i b\ii X]]eh[XYb\ ^eki_dĂľ j^Xd j^\ jhX[_j_edXb L%J% Census method.

Residential energy use by municipality compared to Cook County, 2007 COOK COUNTY

ARLINGTON HEIGHTS

7,692 kWh

9,125 kWh

$828

$982

1,130 Therms

884 Therms

Average Annual $ for Natural Gas per Household*

$1,274

$785

Average Annual Energy Costs

$2,102

$1,767

Average Electricity Use per Household Average Annual $ for Electricity per Household* Average Natural Gas Use per Household

JekhZ\1 :EK <d\hĂśo :ecckd_jo GheĂ’b\ *Calculated using average residential sales per kilowatt hour (kWh) (Illinois Commerce Commission Utility Sales Statistics 2007).

32

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

Urban Design Focus Areas Design Workshop 7\ 8c\S bVS 6][Sa T]` O 1VO\UW\U @SUW]\ bSO[ Q]\RcQbSR O Q][[c\Wbg e]`YaV]^ W\ /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba @SaWRS\ba Q][[c\Wbg ZSORS`a ]TÀQWOZa O\R ]bVS`a ^`SaS\bSR bVSW` dWSea ]\ O T]Qca O`SO aSZSQbSR Pg bVS DWZZOUS( /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba @]OR a]cbV ]T R]e\b]e\ AbOYSV]ZRS`a Ob bVS [SSbW\U ^`SaS\bSR O \c[PS` ]T RWTTS`S\b dWaW]\a for the corridor, ranging from maintaining the area’s current design to considering opportunities for mixed-use development. While some groups felt that residential development was inappropriate for the area, others felt that senior housing should be considered. One group recommended the development of medical facilities. A \c[PS` ]T U`]c^a T]QcaSR S\ac`W\U acTÀQWS\b ^O`YW\U /ZZ U`]c^a S[^VOaWhSR bVS W[^]`bO\QS ]T [OW\bOW\W\U bVS ^`SR][W\O\bZg `SbOWZ focus of the corridor. Arlington Heights Road today

Source: Village of Arlington Heights.

Arlington Heights Road with streetscaping

Source: Fregonese Associates.

This feedback was translated into pictures that capture the range of sentiments heard that night. The images outline four scenarios showing a spectrum of possible changes, everything from streetscape improvements to redevelopment with multiple mixeduse buildings. BVS ^WQbc`SR PcWZRW\Ua R] \]b `SÁSQb O\g ^O`bWQcZO` OUS ]` W\Q][S U`]c^ bVOb aV]cZR PS W\ bVS O`SO <] ]\S ^WQbc`S RSÀ\Sa eVOb aV]cZR happen in the future, but together they illustrate the potential of the corridor as envisioned by the workshop attendees and represent an array of options that the community can explore in the long-term. <] a^SQWÀQ RSdSZ]^[S\b `SaWRS\bWOZ ]` Q][[S`QWOZ VOa PSS\ proposed for this area.

HOUSING POLICY PLAN: ARLINGTON HEIGHTS

Arlington Heights Road with different levels of private investment

Source: Fregonese Associates.

Source: Fregonese Associates.

Source: Fregonese Associates.

33

34

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

Recommended Strategies 6OdW\U QO`STcZZg O\OZghSR Qc``S\b O\R ^`]XSQbSR V]caW\U \SSRa ]T /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba O \c[PS` ]T ^`OQbWQOZ O\R OQVWSdOPZS V]caW\U strategies will allow the Village to build upon its considerable assets while also addressing its future challenges. Multi-family housing preservation The Village has a number of aging multi-family properties, both Q]\R][W\Wc[ O\R `S\bOZ 0g Q]\bW\cW\U b] QO`STcZZg []\Wb]` O\R maintain these units, they can continue to be real assets to Arlington 6SWUVba O\R ^`]dWRS V]caW\U ]^^]`bc\WbWSa T]` O eWRS dO`WSbg ]T residents at many income levels. Overlooked and neglected, they could become the source of social and law enforcement problems W\ bVS DWZZOUS 0g W[^ZS[S\bW\U `SQ][[S\RObW]\a W\ bVWa `S^]`b focused on foreclosure tracking, rental licensing, and rehabilitation, the community can help ensure the quality and viability of its current multi-family stock. Foreclosures 7\ bVS aV]`b bS`[ ]\S ]T bVS DWZZOUSša []ab ^`SaaW\U V]caW\U issues is the impact of foreclosures, in particular condominium T]`SQZ]ac`Sa 7b Wa `SQ][[S\RSR bVOb /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba T]Qca ]\ bVS following local relationship building efforts, thereby creating a base for the regional efforts touched on previously in this report. Â’ CaS bVS T]`SQZ]ac`S RObO ^`]dWRSR bV`]cUV >cPZWQ /Qb '$ &#$ O\R @SQ]`R 7\T]`[ObW]\ AS`dWQSa b] b`OQY O\R []\Wb]` bVS Z]QObW]\ O\R QVO\US ]T T]`SQZ]ac`Sa eWbVW\ bVS DWZZOUS AcQV RObO can be particularly useful for the Village as it works with other Collaborative members to target foreclosure prevention services and heightened code enforcement services, including rental monitoring. Â’ 1][PW\S bVWa T]`SQZ]ac`S RObO eWbV bVS RObO ^`]dWRSR Pg condominium and townhouse associations through the Village’s existing registration requirements to undertake the following OQbWdWbWSa( Â’ ;]\Wb]` bVS \c[PS` O\R ]e\S`aVW^ ]T T]`SQZ]ac`Sa eWbVW\ individual buildings. Â’ CaS O\\cOZ `SUWab`ObW]\ `S_cW`S[S\ba b] RWaQcaa RObO b`S\Ra with associations and hear concerns and issues. Â’ 2SdSZ]^ PS\QV[O`Ya WRS\bWTgW\U eVS\ O ^`]^S`bg Wa Q]\aWRS`SR Âśb`]cPZSR¡ \c[PS` ^S`QS\bOUS ]T T]`SQZ]ac`Sa \c[PS` percentage of rentals, number of different rental owners, utility shutoffs). Â’ E]`Y eWbV bVS 1]ZZOP]`ObWdS b] RSdSZ]^ ^]aaWPZS W\bS`dS\bW]\ strategies for particularly “troubledâ€? properties.

Rental licensing As foreclosed condominiums and single-family houses are reoccupied, the Village may see these homes converted to rental units. Therefore, the Village should explore the following changes to its rental tracking and licensing system so that it continues to suit the local rental stock. Â’ BVS DWZZOUSša Qc``S\b `S\bOZ ZWQS\aW\U agabS[ O^^ZWSa b] ReSZZW\Ua containing more than two dwelling units under common ]e\S`aVW^ /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba aV]cZR SdOZcObS bVS PS\SĂ€ba O\R costs of expanding the rental licensing system to include all rental units in multi-dwelling buildings of more than two units. Â’ BVS DWZZOUS aV]cZR []\Wb]` bVS \c[PS` ]T aW\UZS TO[WZg O\R Rc^ZSf rental units and take additional action as necessary. Foreclosure tracking can help the Village. Â’ BVS DWZZOUS R]Sa \]b Qc``S\bZg ]TTS` O ZO\RZ]`R SRcQObW]\ ^`]U`O[ The Village should evaluate whether to offer a landlord education program and should consider partnering with other Collaborative [S[PS`a b] Q`SObS O\R ]^S`ObS bVWa ^`]U`O[ AcQV O ^`]U`O[ could become more attractive to landlords if tied to incentives for participation. Â’ BVS DWZZOUS aV]cZR Q]\aWRS` UObVS`W\U bVS aO[S W\T]`[ObW]\ (ownership, management, unit type, etc.) as the other Collaborative communities so that data can be combined and O\OZghSR ]\ O `SUW]\OZ POaWa 0g Q]ZZSQbW\U bVS aO[S W\T]`[ObW]\ W\ bVS aO[S T]`[Ob /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba QO\ e]`Y eWbV Wba ^O`b\S`a on common rental housing issues, including addressing problem landlords across a number of communities. Rehabilitation programs /a O 1][[c\Wbg 2SdSZ]^[S\b 0Z]QY 5`O\b 1205 S\bWbZS[S\b Q][[c\Wbg /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba VOa Z]\U ]^S`ObSR O\ ]e\S` ]QQc^WSR single-family rehabilitation program and, when funding allowed, has ]TTS`SR O [cZbW TO[WZg `SVOPWZWbObW]\ ^`]U`O[ 5WdS\ bVS ^]aaWPZS future population growth, future rehabilitation should focus on senior-occupied and rental rehabilitation. Â’ EVWZS \Se V]caW\U ]^bW]\a O`S W[^]`bO\b [O\g aS\W]`a eWZZ want to stay in their current home. The Village should continue to rehabilitate senior-occupied single-family homes to help ]ZRS` `SaWRS\ba OUS W\ ^ZOQS AbO\RO`Ra T]` `SVOPWZWbObW]\ QO\ be developed by working with the Collaborative to develop an ÂśOUW\U W\ ^ZOQS¡ UcWRS AcQV O ^`]U`O[ aV]cZR WRS\bWTg W[^]`bO\b []RWĂ€QObW]\a \SSRSR b] W[^`]dS OQQSaaWPWZWbg SZW[W\ObS PO``WS`a and create safer spaces. Â’ BVS DWZZOUS aV]cZR S\Q]c`OUS bVS `SVOPWZWbObW]\ ]T c\Wba bVOb O`S currently affordable to middle-income renters. These are rental c\Wba W\ bVS & b] # ^S` []\bV U`]aa `S\b `O\US YSS^W\U bVSaS c\Wba OTT]`ROPZS b] V]caSV]ZRa SO`\W\U ZSaa bVO\ !# W\ the middle income range and above.

HOUSING POLICY PLAN: ARLINGTON HEIGHTS

3f^Z]`S \Se Tc\RW\U a]c`QSa /a \]bSR ^`SdW]caZg 1205 R]ZZO`a Tc\R [O\g ]T bVS DWZZOUS¹a current housing and social service efforts, including the housing rehabilitation program. Additional funding sources would help speed implementation of this report in general, particularly local rehabilitation programs. Therefore, the Village should explore new funding sources for local housing activities, including pursing the creation of an affordable housing trust fund. The Village could also Q]\aWRS` X]W\W\U bVS 1]]Y 1]c\bg 6=;3 1]\a]`bWc[ OZZ]eW\U Wb to access federal funds for rehabilitation, new construction, and housing services for low- and moderate-income households. Sustainability and affordability CbWZWbg O\R [OW\bS\O\QS Q]aba O`S YSg Q][^]\S\ba ]T O\g household’s ability to afford a unit. The Village already understands bVWa Q]\\SQbW]\ Oa Wb ]^S`ObSa bVS 6][S 3\S`Ug >`]U`O[ ^`]dWRW\U matching grants for energy audits and home energy improvements. BVS SfWabW\U AW\UZS 4O[WZg @SVOPWZWbObW]\ :]O\ >`]U`O[ OZa] Tc\Ra improvements that impact utility costs, such as roof replacements. 5WdS\ W\Q`SOaSa W\ bVS \c[PS` ]T Q]ab Pc`RS\SR ]e\S`a O\R `S\bS`a W\ /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba ]dS` bVS ^Oab RSQORS bVS DWZZOUS should continue to focus on opportunities to reduce utility and [OW\bS\O\QS Q]aba T]` ]e\S`a O\R `S\bS`a bV`]cUV S\S`Ug STÀQWS\Qg projects. The Village should work with the Collaborative to identify ORRWbW]\OZ Tc\RW\U a]c`QSa T]` S\S`Ug STÀQWS\Qg W[^`]dS[S\ba O\R W[^ZS[S\b S\S`Ug STÀQWS\Qg ^`]XSQba T]` aW\UZS TO[WZg V][Sa O\R multi-family structures. Consider if and how to grow The Village’s Comprehensive Plan set a goal of providing a variety ]T V]caW\U OZbS`\ObWdSa Pg bg^S aWhS O\R ^`WQS `O\US /a O PcWZb ]cb community, opportunities for new development can be scarce. While it is projected that potential growth would be met by the current local capacity for new units, evaluating growth is a continual ^`]QSaa 0SQOcaS OZZ RSQWaW]\a `SUO`RW\U WT O\R V]e b] U`]e O`S local, the Village should continue to explore whether it wants to U`]e O\R WT a] eVS`S acQV U`]ebV aV]cZR ]QQc` 7T bVS DWZZOUS U`]ea prospective residents would demand everything from single-family homes to apartments affordable to households throughout the income spectrum. Downtown Arlington Heights The Village has focused on the redevelopment of downtown /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba W\b] O [WfSR caS b`O\aWb ]`WS\bSR S\bS`bOW\[S\b district over the past 20 years. Opportunities for redevelopment `S[OW\ O`]c\R bVS /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba b`OW\ abObW]\ BVS`ST]`S the Village should continue to pursue these redevelopment opportunities in accordance with the adopted Downtown Master Plan, the Village’s Comprehensive Plan, and Village housing policies Oa O eOg b] W\Q`SOaS bVS ac^^Zg ]T [cZbW TO[WZg V]caW\U AcQV housing should provide a mix of rental and owner housing for multiple ages and incomes.

35

Subregional partnerships 0SQOcaS ]T bVS ^]bS\bWOZ VSZR Pg bVS O`SO /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba aV]cZR work with Mount Prospect and Rolling Meadows on coordinated ab`ObSUWSa T]` bVS /ZU]\_cW\ @]OR Q]``WR]` AcQV STT]`ba aV]cZR W\QZcRS( Â’ Ac^^]`b T]` b`O\a^]`bObW]\ W[^`]dS[S\ba ]\ bVS 7 ' Q]``WR]` bVOb provide greater regional access. Â’ 1]\aWRS`ObW]\ ]T `S\]dObW]\ `SRSdSZ]^[S\b ]^^]`bc\WbWSa bVOb PcWZR ]TT ]T bVSaS b`O\a^]`bObW]\ W[^`]dS[S\ba O\R S[^VOaWhS pedestrian and bicycle connections. Â’ 3f^Z]`ObW]\ ]T ]^^]`bc\WbWSa T]` aVO`SR a]QWOZ aS`dWQSa bVOb [SSb the needs of residents in all three communities.

Conclusion BVS DWZZOUS ]T /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba c\RS`abO\Ra bVOb b] [OW\bOW\ its place as an attractive location for residents and businesses, it [cab abOg ]\ b]^ ]T OZZ OdS\cSa T]` W[^`]dS[S\b 0g Q]\bW\cW\U b] pursue targeted opportunities for development and redevelopment, strengthening and expanding existing housing programs, and helping single-family and multi-family homeowners to rehabilitate O\R c^U`ORS ^`]^S`bWSa /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba QO\ ORR`Saa O\R overcome many of the housing challenges that it is expected to face in the coming decades.

36

Source: Village of Buffalo Grove.

37

Housing Policy Plan: Buffalo Grove Project Summary EVWZS 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS VOa [cQV W\ Q][[]\ eWbV Wba 1]ZZOP]`ObWdS partners (strong schools, good employment base, and stable neighborhoods), its location on the border between Lake 1]c\bg O\R 1]]Y 1]c\bg ]TTS`a ]^^]`bc\WbWSa T]` U`SS\ÀSZR development and redevelopment. The Village’s planning efforts VOdS S[^VOaWhSR bVS R]cPZS SRUSR \Obc`S ]T bVWa ^]aWbW]\ 7ba ' 1][^`SVS\aWdS >ZO\ C^RObS ab`SaaSa bVS W[^]`bO\QS ]T long-range planning for housing in a community with numerous development choices. Choosing the best option while also ^`SaS`dW\U bVS QVO`OQbS` ]T bVS Q][[c\Wbg QO\ PS RWTÀQcZb

@SaWRS\ba O\R PcaW\SaaSa ac^^]`b 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS W\ O dO`WSbg ]T eOga The Village’s highway and transit access (via both Pace and Metra) make it an attractive location for employers. The Fine Art Festival O\R 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS 2Oga R`Oe bVS Q][[c\Wbg b]USbVS` 1WbWhS\a volunteer frequently for commissions and committees. With such great community and civic spirit, the desire for a true town center is understandable. Many of the Village’s recent planning efforts, such Oa bVS B]e\ 1S\bS` RSdSZ]^[S\b Ob 7ZZW\]Wa @]cbS &! O\R :OYS 1]]Y Road, focused on how to bring main street and neighborhood center Oa^SQba b] bVS Q][[c\Wbg @SQ]U\WhW\U bVS ^]bS\bWOZ ]T P]bV bVS 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS O\R >`OW`WS DWSe ;Sb`O abObW]\a Oa Tcbc`S QObOZgaba T]` U`]ebV bVS DWZZOUS VSZ^SR Q`SObS bVS % B`O\aWb AbObW]\ /`SO AbcRg 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS¹a Sf^S`WS\QS eWbV bVS Qc``S\b V]caW\U [O`YSb where townhomes and condominiums are the largest source of local T]`SQZ]ac`Sa VWUVZWUVba bVS W[^]`bO\QS ]T À\RW\U bVS `WUVb Z]\U term housing mix.

BVWa `S^]`b O\OZghSa 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS¹a SfWabW\U Q]\RWbW]\a O\R Tcbc`S \SSRa O\R W\QZcRSa `SQ][[S\RObW]\a T]QcaSR ]\( Â’ 3 f^Z]`W\U ]^^]`bc\WbWSa T]` [OW\ ab`SSb O\R b]e\ center areas. Â’ Capitalizing on the potential of the Buffalo Grove Metra station. Â’ Addressing condominium foreclosures through local and regional efforts. Â’ Implementing the rental licensing program. Â’ 1 `SObW\U W\WbWObWdSa b] W\Q`SOaS bVS S\S`Ug STÀQWS\Qg ]T housing while also improving affordability.

38

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

Existing Conditions Demographic and Economic Trends

Buffalo Grove jobs, 2006-10

A^ZWb PSbeSS\ :OYS 1]c\bg O\R 1]]Y 1]c\bg bVS DWZZOUS ]T 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS Wa P]`RS`SR Pg :]\U 5`]dS b] bVS eSab) DS`\]\ 6WZZa b] bVS north, Lincolnshire and Riverwoods to the east; and Wheeling and /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba b] bVS a]cbV

MANUFACTURING

0cTTOZ] 5`]dSยนa ^]^cZObW]\ VOa `S[OW\SR TOW`Zg abOPZS ]dS` bVS ZOab RSQORS Ob O`]c\R " `SaWRS\ba BVS 1VWQOU] ;Sb`]^]ZWbO\ Agency for Planning (CMAP) produced population and household ^`]XSQbW]\a Oa ^O`b ]T 5= B= " bVS aSdS\ Q]c\bg `SUW]\ยนa comprehensive plan for sustainable prosperity for the next 30 years.8 BVSaS ร Uc`Sa W\RWQObS bVOb WT 5= B= " Wa W[^ZS[S\bSR O\R if the Village takes advantage of its numerous assets, its population Q]cZR `WaS b] # !$! W\ " O\ W\Q`SOaS ]T & ' `SaWRS\ba 9 AcQV O\ increase would require roughly 3,100 additional dwelling units which, as will be noted later in this report, exceeds the existing housing capacity of the Village. While any decisions regarding if and how to grow are local, the projected demand bodes well for the strength of 0cTTOZ] 5`]dSยนa Z]\U bS`[ V]caW\U [O`YSb

2006

2010

ACCOMMODATION AND FOOD SERVICES

PROFESSIONAL, SCIENTIFIC, AND TECHNICAL SERVICES

HEALTH CARE AND SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

WHOLESALE TRADE

FINANCE AND INSURANCE

EDUCATIONAL SERVICES

Population and change in population, 2000 and 2010 Population, 2000 (Census)

42,909

Population, 2010 (Census)

41,496

Change, 2000-10

-1,413

RETAIL TRADE

ADMINISTRATION AND SUPPORT, WASTE MANAGEMENT Change as %, 2000-10 GO TO 2040 Projection, 2040

-3.3 50,363

Source: U.S. Census and CMAP GO TO 2040 projections.

=dS` " ^S`QS\b ]T bVS DWZZOUSยนa S[^Z]g[S\b TOZZa W\b] bV`SS QObSU]`WSa( [O\cTOQbc`W\U OQQ][[]RObW]\ O\R T]]R aS`dWQSa O\R ^`]TSaaW]\OZ aQWS\bWร Q O\R bSQV\WQOZ aS`dWQSa BVS aVO`S ]T Z]QOZ jobs in the manufacturing sector fell from 21 percent to 18 percent PSbeSS\ $ O\R BVS ZO`USab ^`WdObS S[^Z]gS`a W\ 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS W\QZcRS PcaW\SaaSa acQV Oa @SfO[ AWS[S\a DO^]` 0ca 2][W\WQYยนa O\R >ZSfca 1]`^]`ObW]\ / \c[PS` ]T bVSaS ร `[a O`S Z]QObSR O`]c\R bVS 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS ;Sb`O abObW]\

8 See http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/2040. 9 See the Appendix for more information about these projections.

CONSTRUCTION

0%

5%

10%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, LED Data, On-the-Map.

15%

20%

HOUSING POLICY PLAN: BUFFALO GROVE

39

Where Do Buffalo Grove’s Workers Live? 3[^Z]gSSa W\ 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS Q][S T`][ OZZ RW`SQbW]\a SfQS^b bVS \]`bVSOab BVS ÀdS [c\WQW^OZWbWSa ]cbaWRS ]T 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS eWbV bVS greatest concentration of workers commuting to the Village make up ZSaa bVO\ O _cO`bS` ]T OZZ e]`YS`a S[^VOaWhW\U bVS eWRS \c[PS` ]T ^ZOQSa ^S]^ZS b`OdSZ T`][ 4]` bV`SS ]cb ]T ÀdS 1]ZZOP]`ObWdS b]e\a W\QZcRW\U 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS 1VWQOU] Wa bVS ZO`USab aW\UZS ^]W\b ]T ]`WUW\

T]ZZ]eSR Pg bVS DWZZOUS WbaSZT 3WUVb ^S`QS\b ]T 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS e]`YS`a OZa] ZWdS W\ bVS DWZZOUS BVS " ^S`QS\b ]T e]`YS`a eV] ZWdS W\ :OYS County and commute to the Village is by far the highest percentage O[]\U bVS ÀdS Q][[c\WbWSa 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS¹a Z]QObW]\ Oa O UObSeOg community between Cook County and Lake County ensures that its PcaW\SaaSa R`Oe O aWU\WÀQO\b \c[PS` ]T e]`YS`a T`][ P]bV Q]c\bWSa

Where do Buffalo Grove’s workers live, 2010?

Where do Buffalo Grove’s workers live? Job counts by distance/direction in 2010, all workers

11% N

24%

8%

11%

CHICAGO

8%

BUFFALO GROVE

4%

ARLINGTON HEIGHTS

3%

WHEELING

3%

PALATINE

3%

2%

SCHAUMBURG

2%

21%

REMAINDER OF COOK COUNTY

24%

LAKE COUNTY

24%

ALL OTHER LOCATIONS

24%

NW

NE

4%

4,500 2,700

3%

21%

900 W

E

SW

SE

S

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, LED Data, On-the-Map.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, LED Data, On-the-Map.

40

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

Where Do Buffalo Grove’s Residents Work? / _cO`bS` ]T e]`YW\U 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS `SaWRS\ba Q][[cbS b] [OX]` S[^Z]g[S\b VcPa acQV Oa 1VWQOU] /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba AQVOc[Pc`U O\R <]`bVP`]]Y ;O\g `SaWRS\ba Q][[cbS b] bVS a]cbV O\R SOab PSQOcaS ]T bVS W[^]`bO\b b`O\a^]`bObW]\ Q]\\SQbW]\a 7 '" be] <]`bV 1S\b`OZ AS`dWQS ;Sb`O abObW]\a 7ZZW\]Wa @]cbS #! O\R ;WZeOcYSS /dS\cS EVWZS bVS " ^S`QS\b ]T `SaWRS\ba eV] Q][[cbS

to Chicago for work is the lowest percentage among Collaborative, the 22 percent of residents who commute to Lake County is the highest percentage. As noted before, the Village’s location on the border between Cook County and Lake County allows it great access to jobs throughout the region.

Where do Buffalo Grove’s residents work, 2010?

Where do Buffalo Grove’s residents work? Job counts by distance/direction in 2010, all workers

14%

N

15% 14%

CHICAGO

7%

BUFFALO GROVE

5%

ARLINGTON HEIGHTS

4%

NORTHBROOK

4%

WHEELING

NW

7%

NE 7,000 4,200

5%

22%

4%

SCHAUMBURG

25%

REMAINDER OF COOK COUNTY

22%

LAKE COUNTY

15%

ALL OTHER LOCATIONS

25%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, LED Data, On-the-Map.

1,400

4%

W

E

4% 4% SW

SE

S

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, LED Data, On-the-Map.

HOUSING POLICY PLAN: BUFFALO GROVE

41

Current Housing Analysis While single-family detached homes are the dominant housing bg^S bVS aWU\WĂ€QO\b \c[PS` ]T b]e\V][Sa O\R [cZbW TO[WZg c\Wba ensures that the Village maintains a balance of both attached and RSbOQVSR V]caW\U B]e\V][Sa Q][^`WaS $ ^S`QS\b ]T bVS ]QQc^WSR housing stock; multi-family units comprise 30 percent. These options create a housing market with a relatively similar number of renters in all income groups. /^^`]fW[ObSZg $ ^S`QS\b ]T P]bV ]e\S`a O\R `S\bS`a a^S\R ZSaa than 30 percent of their income on housing costs. Despite current similarities, the portion of owners whose housing costs are not OTT]`ROPZS VOa `WaS\ TO` []`S bVO\ `S\bS`a W\ bVS ZOab RSQORS AW\QS 2000, the number of cost-burdened owners increased from 22 ^S`QS\b b] " ^S`QS\b W\ ^O`b PSQOcaS ]T O R]cPZW\U W\ bVS \c[PS` ]T ]e\S`a ^OgW\U []`S bVO\ # ^S`QS\b ]T bVSW` W\Q][S ]\ V]caW\U costs. Comparatively, the number of cost-burdened renters W\Q`SOaSR T`][ ! ^S`QS\b b] " ^S`QS\b BVS W\Q`SOaW\U \c[PS` ]T Q]ab Pc`RS\SR ]e\S`a O\R `S\bS`a W\ 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS ]dS` bVS ZOab decade is consistent with national trends. According to analysis by 6O`dO`R C\WdS`aWbg ÂśbVS `SQSaaW]\ ­ RWR ZWbbZS b] `SRcQS V]caW\U outlays for many Americans,â€? due in part to declining incomes, slow employment growth, and more stringent credit requirements.10

What is “Affordable Housing?� What constitutes affordable housing varies from household to household, as the measure is relative. For this report, the following U.S. Census guidelines were used: š “Affordable housing� is housing that costs no more than 30 percent of household income (including utilities, insurance, and taxes). š “Unaffordable housing� is housing that costs between 30 percent and 50 percent of household income. š “Severely unaffordable housing� is housing that costs more than 50 percent of household income.

Buffalo Grove housing type by tenure OWNER-OCCUPIED

RENTER-OCCUPIED

9,000 8,000

332 8,424

7,000 6,000 5,000 2,116 4,000 3,000

258

2,829

2,391

2,000 1,000 0

SINGLE FAMILY

TOWNHOME

Source: American Community Survey 2006-10.

10 Joint Center for Housing Studies. (June, 2012). State of the Nation’s Housing 2012. Harvard University.

MULTIFAMILY

0 0 OTHER

42

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

Buffalo Grove tenure by units in structure

Buffalo Grove tenure by household income, in number of occupied units

OWNER-OCCUPIED

OWNER-OCCUPIED

RENTER-OCCUPIED

RENTER-OCCUPIED

1 (DETACHED) 1 (ATTACHED)

3,500

2 UNITS

3,000

3 OR 4 UNITS

2,500 5 TO 9 UNITS

2,000 10 TO 19 UNITS 20 TO 49 UNITS

1,500

50 OR MORE UNITS

1,000

MOBILE HOME

500 BOAT, RV, VAN, ETC. 0

1,000

2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

6,000 7,000 8,000

0

<15k

<35k

<50k

Source: American Community Survey 2006-10.

Source: American Community Survey 2006-10.

Buffalo Grove rental and owner housing affordability OWNER HOUSING

15%

19%

25% 60%

AFFORDABLE

RENTAL HOUSING

UNAFFORDABLE

Source: American Community Survey 2006-10.

21%

60%

SEVERELY UNAFFORDABLE

<75k

<100k

<150k

150k+

HOUSING POLICY PLAN: BUFFALO GROVE

43

Current Ownership Housing

Current Rental Housing

The number of households closely matches the number of units for ]e\S`a [OYW\U PSbeSS\ !# O\R %# 5O^a W\ ac^^Zg SfWab Ob bVS Z]e O\R VWUV S\R ]T bVS W\Q][S a^SQb`c[ eWbV aWU\WĂ€QO\bZg more owner households in these income ranges than homes. This mismatch encourages families to “move upâ€? or “move down.â€? 6WUVS` W\Q][S ]e\S`a ]TbS\ QV]]aS b] []dS R]e\ ]QQc^gW\U less costly housing and spending less than 30 percent of their income on housing costs. Lower income households must move up, spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing Q]aba O\R PSQ][W\U Q]ab Pc`RS\SR 6]caSV]ZRa bVOb []dS c^ acQV Oa V][S]e\S`a SO`\W\U ZSaa bVO\ # Q][^`WaS ^O`b of the increasing number of residents whose housing costs are unaffordable.

0cTTOZ] 5`]dSša SfWabW\U ac^^Zg ]T `S\bOZ V]caW\U aS`dSa []RS`ObS b] [WRRZS W\Q][S `S\bS`a eSZZ Ac^^Zg RS[O\R UO^a V]eSdS` SfWab at the bottom and top ends of the rental market. The Village needs more rental units serving both the needs of low-income families and c^^S` W\Q][S TO[WZWSa 7b aV]cZR PS \]bSR bVOb a][S c^^S` W\Q][S families move down, preferring to live in rental units they can easily afford and to save money for other purposes. Whether or not a renter is likely to move up, renting an unaffordable unit, depends in ^O`b ]\ OUS EVWZS aS\W]`a OUS $# ]` ]ZRS` [OYS c^ ]\Zg # ^S`QS\b ]T renters in the Village, over a quarter of renters paying more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs are seniors.

The likelihood of owning a home with or without a mortgage drives the current supply of occupied housing within each of the seven W\Q][S U`]c^a =e\S`a QO\ À\R V]caW\U ]^bW]\a OdOWZOPZS b] V]caSV]ZRa [OYW\U []`S bVO\ %# eWbV O []`bUOUS ;]`S bVO\ $ ^S`QS\b ]T ]e\S`a eWbV []`bUOUSa O`S PSbeSS\ " O\R ## =e\S`a aSSYW\U V]caW\U OTT]`ROPZS b] V]caSV]ZRa [OYW\U PSZ]e !# O`S bg^WQOZZg Z]]YW\U T]` c\Wba eWbV]cb []`bUOUSa /^^`]fW[ObSZg #$ ^S`QS\b ]T ]e\S`a eWbV]cb []`bUOUSa O`S ]ZRS` bVO\ $# Buffalo Grove comparison of owner household incomes with occupied units affordable at each income level 2010

Buffalo Grove comparison of rental household incomes with occupied units affordable at each income level 2010

ACTUAL HOUSEHOLDS AT INCOME LEVEL 2010

ACTUAL HOUSEHOLDS AT INCOME LEVEL 2010

ESTIMATED OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS AFFORDABLE AT INCOME LEVEL (WITHOUT MORTGAGE) 2010

ESTIMATED OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS AFFORDABLE AT INCOME LEVEL 2010 1,000

ESTIMATED OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS AFFORDABLE AT INCOME LEVEL (WITH MORTGAGE) 2010 5,000

800

4,000 600 3,000 400 2,000

200 1,000

0

<$15

<$35

<$50

<$75

<$100

<$150

$150+

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese Envision Tomorrow Balanced Housing Model using ACS 2006-10 inputs.

0

<$15

<$35

<$50

<$75

<$100

<$150

$150+

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese Envision Tomorrow Balanced Housing Model using ACS 2006-10 inputs.

44

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

Today’s Market Segments and Market Preferences B]]Za RSdSZ]^SR Pg O ZSORW\U eSZZ Y\]e\ [O`YSb `SaSO`QV À`[ 3\dW`]\[S\bOZ AgabS[a @SaSO`QV 7\abWbcbS 3A@7 eS`S caSR to enrich the understanding of the housing types preferred by TO[WZWSa bVOb ZWdS W\ 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS b]ROg BVS POaWQ c\Wb ]T bVS 3A@7 1][[c\Wbg BO^Sab`g agabS[ Wa bVS \SWUVP]`V]]R POaSR ]\ C A 1S\aca PZ]QY U`]c^a 3A@7 VOa QZOaaWÀSR SdS`g \SWUVP]`V]]R W\ bVS Q]c\b`g Oa ]\S ]T $# [O`YSb aSU[S\ba BVSaS aSU[S\ba O`S bVS\ Q][PW\SR W\b] ]\S ]T :WTS;]RS U`]c^a ASU[S\ba O\R U`]c^a O`S OaaWU\SR b] \SWUVP]`V]]Ra Pg a]`bW\U []`S bVO\ $ attributes including income, employment, home value, housing type, education, household composition, age, and other key RSbS`[W\O\ba ]T Q]\ac[S` PSVOdW]` <SWUVP]`V]]Ra eWbV bVS []ab similar characteristics are combined while neighborhoods showing divergent characteristics are separated.

BVS ZO`USab acQV U`]c^ Âś6WUV A]QWSbg ¡ O`S VWUVS` W\Q][S households distinguished by their interest in single-family homes. ÂśC^aQOZS /dS\cSa¡ OZa] bS\R b] PS OTĂ cS\b V]caSV]ZRa Pcb bVSg prefer a variety of housing types and are more likely to invest W\ bVSW` V]caW\U bV`]cUV `S[]RSZW\U ]` ZO\RaQO^W\U ÂśAS\W]` AbgZSa¡ `SaWRS\ba VOdS V]caW\U ^`STS`S\QSa Oa RWdS`aS Oa bVSW` circumstances, residing in single-family homes, retirement homes, or high-rises. Finally, “Traditional Livingâ€? households are families with older children, typically owning single-family homes in established, slow-growing neighborhoods.

4]c` U`]c^a W\b] eVWQV OZZ ]T 0cTTOZ] 5`]dSša V]caSV]ZRa TOZZ eS`S WRS\bWĂ€SR( 6WUV A]QWSbg C^aQOZS /dS\cSa AS\W]` AbgZSa O\R Traditional Living.

EVOb R]Sa bVWa [SO\ T]` bVS Tcbc`S V]caW\U \SSRa ]T 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS- 4W`ab Wb [SO\a bVOb OP]cb " ^S`QS\b ]T Qc``S\b `SaWRS\ba VOdS Ob least a moderate propensity to live in a compact neighborhood (e.g. containing a range of housing types that encourage walking to retail stores, neighborhood amenities, other homes, and transit lines). ASQ]\RZg bVS U`]c^a VSZ^ Q]\Ă€`[ O\R RSS^S\ W\T]`[ObW]\ UZSO\SR T`][ C A 1S\aca RObO BVS R][W\O\b ^]aWbW]\ ]T bVS 6WUV A]QWSbg aSU[S\b Q][^`WaW\U $! ^S`QS\b ]T OZZ Z]QOZ V]caSV]ZRa c\RS`ZW\Sa the local preference for single-family homes by middle-aged upper W\Q][S V]caSV]ZRa BVOb aOWR bVS ^`SaS\QS ]T AS\W]` AbgZSa O\R C^aQOZS /dS\cSa W\ 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS ^`]dWRS bVS POaWa T]` P]bV ]e\S` and rental-housing options that are not single-family homes. Finally, while not an exact guide to the future, these groups can also be useful when planning for future housing needs, as will be explored in subsequent sections.

Buffalo Grove Lifemode groups LIFEMODE GROUPS

INCOME

FAMILY TYPE

AVERAGE AGE

% OF TOTAL

HOUSING TYPES

TENURE

Upper

Married Couples

41.7

63.3%

Single-family

Own

Middle-Upper

Mixed

38.6

25.6%

Single-family, townhomes, multi-unit

Own

Senior Styles

Middle

Married no-kids

50.3

8.7%

Multi-unit

Own/rent

Solo Acts

Modest

Mixed

36.8

2.4%

Single-family and multi-unit

Own/rent

High Society Upscale Avenues

Source: CMAP analysis of ESRI Community Tapestry Segments.

HOUSING POLICY PLAN: BUFFALO GROVE

45

Projecting Future Housing Needs While all of the previous information describes the current V]caW\U [O`YSb W\ 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS bVS PSab V]caW\U ^ZO\\W\U bOYSa into account those who might live in the community in the future. Census data, CMAP’s local population and household projections T]` bVS gSO` " O\R bVS 3A@7 BO^Sab`g [O`YSb aSU[S\b RObO OZZ]e T]` a][S `SOZWabWQ SabW[ObSa ]T eV] eWZZ eO\b b] ZWdS W\ 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS over the next 30 years and what kinds of housing would allow the Village to meet the needs of current and future residents.

Buffalo Grove 2010 households and housing stock compared with 2040 owner demand OCCUPIED HOUSING STOCK AFFORDABLE AT 30% OF INCOME (2010) DEMAND AT INCOME LEVEL (2010) PROJECTED DEMAND AT INCOME LEVEL (2040)

5,000

Future Ownership Needs Assuming future population growth, a modest number of additional units could be needed to serve households across the entire income spectrum. Only the present supply of units affordable to owners SO`\W\U PSbeSS\ %# O\R e]cZR \]b PS ]cbab`W^^SR Pg ^`]XSQbSR U`]ebV 7b Wa SabW[ObSR bVS ZO`USab aV]`bTOZZa e]cZR SfWab Ob bVS Z]e S\R #! c\Wba \SSRSR T]` V]caSV]ZRa SO`\W\U ZSaa bVO\ # O\R Ob bVS VWUV S\R $ c\Wba \SSRSR T]` V]caSV]ZRa SO`\W\U []`S bVO\ # EVWZS bVS \SSR T]` V]caW\U Ob P]bV ends of the income spectrum opens up unique development opportunities, the true ability to serve both markets is not clear cut. Financial realities make the development of owner housing for very Z]e W\Q][S V]caSV]ZRa RWTÀQcZb ;O\g OTà cS\b V]caSV]ZRa ^`STS` to move down, saving their money for other things. 7b Wa ^`]XSQbSR bVOb bVSaS bV`SS OUS U`]c^a eWZZ ^ZOg YSg `]ZSa W\ bVS Village’s future ownership market. For households making less than # Tcbc`S ]e\S` V]caW\U e]cZR PS R`WdS\ Pg aS\W]` QWbWhS\a 4]` ]e\S`a [OYW\U OP]dS # e]`YW\U OUS O\R [WRRZS OUS households will drive the market. Taking into account market aSU[S\b W\T]`[ObW]\ bVS W[^]`bO\QS ]T bVS AS\W]` AbgZSa U`]c^ eWZZ grow in the next 30 years, creating a need for additional multi-family owner housing options. That said, the Village’s owner market will Q]\bW\cS b] PS R`WdS\ Pg bVS 6WUV A]QWSbg O\R C^aQOZS /dS\cSa U`]c^a /QQ][[]RObW\U 6WUV A]QWSbg V]caSV]ZRa e]cZR `S_cW`S ORRWbW]\OZ aW\UZS TO[WZg V][Sa C^aQOZS /dS\cSa eWZZ RS[O\R O mix of housing types, underlining the importance of providing additional townhome and multi-family options. Few future owners O`S ^`]XSQbSR b] PS ZSaa bVO\ # gSO`a ]ZR

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

<$15

<$35

<$50

<$75

<$100

<$150

$150+

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese Envision Tomorrow Balanced Housing Model using ACS 2006-10 and CMAP GO TO 2040 household forecast inputs.

Buffalo Grove projected owner demand by age of household 25-44

45-64

65+

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

<15k

<35k

<50k

<75k

<100k

<150k

150k+

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese Envision Tomorrow Balanced Housing Model using ACS 2006-10 and CMAP GO TO 2040 household forecast inputs.

46

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

Future Rental Needs

Buffalo Grove 2010 households and housing stock compared with 2040 rental demand

Even with more projected households in all income groups, it is estimated that most future rental housing would be needed for V]caSV]ZRa SO`\W\U ZSaa bVO\ !# BVS aV]`bTOZZa W\ bVSaS income categories combined with the large surplus of units for V]caSV]ZRa SO`\W\U PSbeSS\ !# O\R %# Q]cZR R`WdS future renters into unaffordable housing. The current unit shortage for these households makes up almost 90 percent of the Village’s current cost-burdened renters. With projected growth, the number of cost-burdened households could increase by almost a quarter Pg " eWbV]cb ORRWbW]\OZ ac^^Zg 5WdS\ bVS aVSS` \c[PS` ]T c\Wba affordable to middle-income households, programs that focus on helping low-income renters afford units may help avoid this crunch. The two primary age groups projected to drive future rental V]caW\U W\ 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS O`S aS\W]`a OUS $# ]` ]ZRS` O\R [cQV ]T bVS e]`YW\U OUS ^]^cZObW]\ OUS # b] "" /Q`]aa OZZ W\Q][S QObSU]`WSa V]caSV]ZRS`a OUS # b] "" T]`[ bVS Q]`S ]T bVS `S\bOZ [O`YSb largely continuing to match the Traditional Living households that currently drive the rental market. A predominantly working-age population, this group may provide the Village with an opportunity to create transit-oriented rental housing in the areas around the 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS O\R >`OW`WS DWSe ;Sb`O abObW]\a 7b Wa SabW[ObSR bVOb seniors will drive the rental market for households earning less than !# `SÁSQbW\U U`]ebV O[]\U AS\W]` AbgZSa V]caSV]ZRa O\R bVS need to consider rental developments that respond to their unique needs, such as accessibility.

OCCUPIED HOUSING STOCK AFFORDABLE AT 30% OF INCOME (2010) DEMAND AT INCOME LEVEL (2010) PROJECTED DEMAND AT INCOME LEVEL (2040)

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

<$15

<$35

<$50

<$75

<$100

<$150

$150+

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese Envision Tomorrow Balanced Housing Model using ACS 2006-10 and CMAP GO TO 2040 household forecast inputs.

Buffalo Grove projected renter demand by age of household <25

25-44

45-64

65+

1,000

800

600

400

200

0 <15k

<35k

<50k

<75k

<100k

<150k

150k+

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese Envision Tomorrow Balanced Housing Model using ACS 2006-10 and CMAP GO TO 2040 household forecast inputs.

HOUSING POLICY PLAN: BUFFALO GROVE

47

Demand is strongest for multi-family units.

Housing Demand by Type of Unit When combining projections for new owners and renters, there Wa ]\S ^]aaWPZS ^WQbc`S ]T 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS¹a RS[O\R T]` ORRWbW]\OZ V]caW\U c\Wba Pg bg^S W\ " EVOb S[S`USa Wa O ¶POZO\QSR V]caW\U· ^`]ÀZS eWbV RS[O\R T]` OP]cb & ORRWbW]\OZ aW\UZS TO[WZg V][Sa "#% b]e\V][Sa O\R ' # [cZbW TO[WZg V][Sa PSbeSS\ \]e O\R " /a \]bSR ^`SdW]caZg bVSaS ÀUc`Sa O`S POaSR ]\ ^`]XSQbW]\a) real growth may be more or less than estimated.

Source: CMAP.

Buffalo Grove future balanced housing profile INCREMENTAL UNITS (INCLUDES NEW UNITS, REHABILITATED VACANT UNITS AND VACANCIES, 2010-2040) OCCUPIED HOUSING SUPPLY BUFFALO GROVE, 2010 1,915 6,000 353 5,000

5,254 4,945

4,000 457 3,502 3,000

457 2,649

2,000

1,000

0

LARGE LOT SF

SMALL LOT SF

TOWNHOME

MULTIFAMILY

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese Envision Tomorrow Balanced Housing Model using ACS 2006-10 and CMAP GO TO 2040 household forecast inputs.

48

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

Capacity for Growth Estimated future population and household growth is only one half of the equation in considering future housing needs. As a community with numerous assets, it is understandable why many people eO\b b] ZWdS W\ 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS \]e O\R W\ bVS Tcbc`S 0cb b] ^ZO\ for future households and housing, it is also important to look at capacity. To understand the Village’s ability to accommodate proXSQbSR U`]ebV be] YSg a]c`QSa ]T QO^OQWbg eS`S `SdWSeSR( RSdSZ]^[S\b `SRSdSZ]^[S\b O\R dOQO\Qg 11

Buffalo Grove maximum capacity by unit type

29%

Development/Redevelopment Analysis BVS SfbS\b b] eVWQV 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS Q]cZR U`]e POaSR ]\ Qc``S\b ZO\R caS `SUcZObW]\a eOa O\OZghSR 7\ `SdWSeW\U 1]]Y 1]c\bg O\R Lake County assessor data, vacant and redevelopable parcels were WRS\bWÀSR eVS`S bVS ZO\R dOZcS Wa U`SObS` bVO\ bVS W[^`]dS[S\b dOZcS BVS\ bVS Q][[c\Wbg¹a Qc``S\b h]\W\U O\R RSdSZ]^[S\b abO\RO`Ra eS`S O^^ZWSR b] ÀUc`S ]cb V]e [O\g c\Wba Q]cZR PS PcWZb W\ 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS 0OaSR ]\ bVOb O\OZgaWa Wb Wa SabW[ObSR 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS VOa bVS QO^OQWbg T]` O^^`]fW[ObSZg % & \Se ReSZZW\U c\Wba ASdS\bg ^S`QS\b ]T \Se c\Wba Q]cZR PS [cZbW TO[WZg eVWZS ' ^S`QS\b could be single-family homes. This capacity would allow the Village b] OQQ][[]RObS OP]cb &# ^S`QS\b ]T bVS ^`]XSQbSR ^]^cZObW]\ U`]ebV ]` % $ \Se `SaWRS\ba

29%

LARGE LOT SF

0%

SMALL LOT SF

1%

TOWNHOME

70%

1%

MULTIFAMILY

70%

Source: CMAP analysis of Buffalo Grove zoning ordinance, Cook County assessor data and Lake County assessor data.

Maximum capacity by unit type TYPE

UNITS

Large Lot SF (>8,000 s.f.)

796

Small Lot SF (<8,000 s.f.)

9

Townhome Multi-family Mobile Home/Other TOTAL

23 1,889 2,718

Source: CMAP analysis of Buffalo Grove zoning ordinance, Cook County and Lake County assessor data.

11 See the Appendix for more information about the methodology.

HOUSING POLICY PLAN: BUFFALO GROVE

9XbXdZ_dõ h\[\l\befc\dj Xd[ õh\\dÃ’\b[ [\l\befc\dj _i X Z^Xbb\dõ\ Xd[ Xd effehjkd_jo%

Vacancy Analysis 0SQOcaS ]T bVS Qc``S\b V]caW\U [O`YSb [O\g V][Sa \]e dOQO\b may not be so in the future, allowing people to move in without PcWZRW\U \Se c\Wba /QQ]`RW\U b] $ /[S`WQO\ 1][[c\Wbg Ac`dSg /1A SabW[ObSa 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS VOa O^^`]fW[ObSZg # $ vacant housing units, about 3.1 percent of all homes in the Village. <]`[OZ Z]\U bS`[ dOQO\Qg `ObSa T]` O ab`]\U Q][[c\Wbg O`S % " ^S`QS\b T]` `S\bOZ c\Wba O\R # ^S`QS\b T]` ]e\S` c\Wba 12 7\ O VSOZbVg market, the Village would only have a vacancy rate of approximately ! ^S`QS\b eVWQV b`O\aZObSa b] " # dOQO\b c\Wba BVS`ST]`S Qc``S\bZg dOQO\b c\Wba Q]cZR PS ]QQc^WSR W\ bVS Tcbc`S Oa 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS U`]ea BVWa QO^OQWbg e]cZR OZZ]e bVS DWZZOUS b] OQQ][[]RObS OP]cb " ^S`QS\b ]T bVS ^`]XSQbSR U`]ebV ]` OP]cb ! \Se `SaWRS\ba

Buffalo Grove breakdown of current vacant units VACANT UNITS IN HEALTHY MARKET CURRENT VACANT UNITS TO BE OCCUPIED 500

400

300

200

100

0 Source: CMAP analysis of ACS 2006-10. 12 See ^jjf1&&mmm%`Z^i%^XhlXh[%\[k&i_j\i&`Z^i%^XhlXh[%\[k&Ã’b\i&m'.$.%f[].

49

Source: CMAP.

50

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

Future Housing Conclusions 1][PW\SR dOQO\Qg O\R RSdSZ]^[S\b `SRSdSZ]^[S\b Q]cZR ^`]dWRS avenues for almost 89 percent of the projected housing units that Q]cZR PS ORRSR Pg " ]` OP]cb % ' ORRWbW]\OZ `SaWRS\ba BVS remaining approximately 1,000 future residents represent unmet RS[O\R ^S]^ZS eV] eO\b b] ZWdS W\ 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS Pcb QO\\]b RcS to a lack of available units. Many of these people would be looking for small lot single family homes and townhomes, as the Village’s current codes would accommodate growth for large lot single-family and multi-family units. While these resources do not allow the Village to capture all future `SaWRS\ba eV] [WUVb eO\b b] ZWdS W\ 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS bVS 5= B= " projections on which these numbers are based are only estimates; real growth may be more or less than projected. Therefore, policy makers are encouraged to use these statistics as a guide, focusing on the relative number of single family, multi-family and townhome c\Wba bVOb b]USbVS` `SÁSQb O POZO\QSR V]caW\U [O`YSb eVS\ considering if and how to grow.

The Village’s transit stations represent an opportunity. Source: CMAP.

Buffalo Grove demand vs. vacancy and capacity by housing type, units 2010-40 DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY (2010) VACANT UNITS (2010) ESTIMATED INCREASE IN DEMAND FOR UNITS (2040)

1,750

1,500

1,250

1,000

750

500

250

0 LARGE LOT SF SMALL LOT SF

TOWNHOME

MULTIFAMILY

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese Envision Tomorrow Balanced Housing Model, Cook County Property Assessor data, and U.S. Census Bureau inputs.

HOUSING POLICY PLAN: BUFFALO GROVE

Urban Design Focus Area Design Workshop 7\ 8c\S bVS 6][Sa T]` O 1VO\UW\U @SUW]\ bSO[ Q]\RcQbSR O Q][[c\Wbg e]`YaV]^ W\ 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS @SaWRS\ba Q][[c\Wbg ZSORS`a DWZZOUS ]Tร QWOZa O\R ]bVS`a ^`SaS\bSR bVSW` dWSea ]\ eVOb Q]cZR PS R]\S W\ O DWZZOUS aSZSQbSR T]Qca O`SO O`]c\R bVS 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS ;Sb`O abObW]\ /bbS\RSSa T]QcaSR ]\ Q`SObW\U [WfSR caS development that takes advantage of the train station, including multi-family residential development, shops, restaurants and parks, O\R ^ZOhOa Buffalo Grove Metra Station today

Source: Northwest Suburban Housing Collaborative.

Buffalo Grove Metra Station with private investment

Source: Fregonese Associates.

These ideas were translated into the following images, showing how the area would be transformed with mixed-use development Ob bVS YSg 2SS`ร SZR >O`YeOg O\R 0caQV >O`YeOg W\bS`aSQbW]\ BVS ^WQbc`Sa OZa] `Sร SQb bVS DWZZOUSยนa % B`O\aWb AbObW]\ /`SO AbcRg O\R bVS ' 1][^`SVS\aWdS >ZO\ C^RObS eVWQV RWaQcaa bVS O`SO The community feedback shaped the recommended strategies in this report, including short-term and long-term recommendations RSaWU\SR b] OZZ]e 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS b] W[^ZS[S\b Wba Z]QOZ dWaW]\ ]dS` O number of years.

51

52

Source: Fregonese Associates.

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

HOUSING POLICY PLAN: BUFFALO GROVE

53

Sustainability 7\ % bVS 1S\bS` T]` <SWUVP]`V]]R BSQV\]Z]Ug 1<B ^`]RcQSR O\ S\S`Ug O\R S[WaaW]\a ^`]Ă€ZS T]` 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS Oa ^O`b ]T bVS ;c\WQW^OZ 3\S`Ug >`]Ă€ZS >`]XSQb /QQ]`RW\U b] bVS `S^]`b bVS DWZZOUS S[WbbSR O\ SabW[ObSR # " [Sb`WQ b]\a ;B ]T QO`P]\ RW]fWRS 1= S ^S` QO^WbO O^^`]fW[ObSZg # ^S`QS\b []`S bVO\ bVS 1]]Y 1]c\bg S[WaaW]\a ^S` QO^WbO " &$ ;B 1= S O\R # ^S`QS\b ZSaa bVO\ bVS :OYS 1]c\bg S[WaaW]\a ^S` QO^WbO $ ;B 1= S EWbV '! percent of local emissions coming from electricity, natural gas, and b`O\a^]`bObW]\ O\g T]`eO`R bVW\YW\U V]caW\U ^ZO\ aV]cZR O\OZghS these areas. BVS bOPZS VWUVZWUVba 0cTTOZ] 5`]dSša `SaWRS\bWOZ SZSQb`WQ O\R \Obc`OZ gas usage in comparison to Cook County and Lake County in 2007. /b bVOb bW[S bVS OdS`OUS 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS V]caSV]ZR a^S\b ZSaa ]\ energy than the average household of either county. One key part of Z]QOZ S\S`Ug caOUS Wa bVS V][S VSObW\U a]c`QS 0OaSR ]\ RObO T`][ bVS $ /1A \Obc`OZ UOa Wa bVS R][W\O\b Z]QOZ V][S VSObW\U source, used by 91 percent of households. Electricity provides heat for a larger percentage of renters than owners (23 percent vs. 3 percent). /QQ]`RW\U b] % 1<B RObO 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS OdS`OUSR O VWUVS` number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per household than Cook 1]c\bg ' #! dS`aca " %" `Sa^SQbWdSZg Pcb Z]eS` bVO\ :OYS 1]c\bg '% 0SQOcaS ]T bVS RWTTS`S\QS W\ [WZSOUS 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS `SaWRS\ba ^Og O^^`]fW[ObSZg " []`S ^S` []\bV W\ b`O\a^]`bObW]\ costs than the average Cook County household, but approximately " ZSaa bVO\ bVS OdS`OUS :OYS 1]c\bg V]caSV]ZR POaSR ]\ bVS Qc``S\b 7\bS`\OZ @SdS\cS AS`dWQS 7@A [WZSOUS `SW[Pc`aS[S\b `ObS @SaSO`QV Pg @SWR 3eW\U O\R ]bVS`a W\ bVS 8]c`\OZ ]T C`PO\ >ZO\\W\U and Development has shown that the biggest factor in reducing VMT Wa T`][ Âś^cbbW\U ]TĂ€QSa aV]^a `SabOc`O\ba `SaWRS\QSa O\R ]bVS` codependent activities in close proximity to each other.â€?13 As discussed previously, the number of cost-burdened households W\ 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS VOa W\Q`SOaSR ]dS` bVS ^Oab RSQORS O\R RS^S\RW\U on how the Village responds to projected future demand, could Q]\bW\cS b] W\Q`SOaS 3\S`Ug STĂ€QWS\Qg O\R acabOW\OPWZWbg STT]`ba can help mitigate rising housing costs. The Village’s municipal aggregation program, which may offer residents low electricity rates, could help cost-burdened renters and owners, as can a commitment b] W[^ZS[S\bW\U S\S`Ug STĂ€QWS\b RSaWU\a Oa ^O`b ]T `SVOPWZWbObW]\ and new construction. Finally, a focus on compact neighborhoods and transit oriented development, such as envisioned around bVS 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS ;Sb`O abObW]\ ]TTS`a `SaWRS\ba eOga b] `SRcQS transportation costs.

(* 8c\h_ZXd JeZ_\jo e] :_l_b <dĂś_d\\hi% KhX]Ă’Z >\d\hXj\[ Yo D_n\[$Li\ ;\l\befc\dji Ă… J_n$ Region Study Using Consistent Built Environmental Measures. Journal of Urban Planning, October 2010.

Housing and Transportation @d h\Z\dj o\Xhi# :EK [\l\bef\[ Xd Xbj\hdXj_l\ mXo je [\Ă’d\ “affordable housingâ€? as housing which costs no more than 45 percent of both housing and transportation costs. According to Ă’Ăľkh\i ]hec :EK# (- f\hZ\dj e] jof_ZXb h\Ăľ_edXb ^eki\^eb[i X 2.73 person household earning $60,289) would pay less than 45 percent of their household income on housing and transportation costs combined when living in Buffalo Grove. This alternate c\Xikh\ Ă’d[i b\ii X]]eh[XYb\ ^eki_dĂľ j^Xd j^\ jhX[_j_edXb L%J% Census method.

Residential energy use by municipality compared to Cook County, 2007 COOK COUNTY

LAKE COUNTY

BUFFALO GROVE

Average Electricity Use per Household

7,692 kWh

11,524 kWh

9,447 kWh

Average Annual $ for Electricity per Household*

$828

$1,240

$1,016

1,130 Therms

1,229 Therms

937 Therms

Average Annual $ for Natural Gas per Household*

$1,274

$1,316

$907

Average Annual Energy Costs

$2,102

$2,556

$1,923

Average Natural Gas Use per Household

JekhZ\1 :EK <d\hĂśo :ecckd_jo GheĂ’b\ *Calculated using average residential sales per kilowatt hour (kWh) (Illinois Commerce Commission Utility Sales Statistics 2007).

54

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

Recommended Strategies 6OdW\U QO`STcZZg O\OZghSR Qc``S\b O\R ^`]XSQbSR V]caW\U \SSRa bVS following strategies will allow the Village to use its considerable assets to address future challenges in providing a diverse housing stock for its residents. Create town centers 0OaSR ]\ bVS `SQ][[S\RObW]\a ]T bVS ' 1][^`SVS\aWdS >ZO\ C^RObS OZ]\U eWbV Q][[S\ba Ob bVS RSaWU\ e]`YaV]^ `SaWRS\ba RSaW`S O b]e\ QS\bS` 7\ Wba VWab]`g bVS DWZZOUS VOa ^`W[O`WZg T]QcaSR ]\ bV`SS RWTTS`S\b O`SOa( OZ]\U :OYS 1]]Y @]OR bVS 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS Metra station and the Prairie View Metra station. The Village should continue to explore creating “downtown,� “neighborhood center� or “main street� aspects throughout the Village, including mixed-use development. Due to the context of each area, the Metra stations may be better suited for younger populations along with workforce housing, while opportunities along Lake Cook Road may be better for senior housing. Proposed units should respond to the community’s projected housing needs, providing a mix of rental and owner housing for multiple ages and incomes.

Foreclosures 7\ bVS aV]`b bS`[ ]\S ]T bVS DWZZOUSša []ab ^`SaaW\U V]caW\U issues is the impact of foreclosures, in particular condominium T]`SQZ]ac`Sa 7b Wa `SQ][[S\RSR bVOb 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS T]Qca ]\ relationship building locally, thereby creating a base for the regional efforts touched on previously in this report. Â’ CaS bVS T]`SQZ]ac`S RObO ^`]dWRSR bV`]cUV >cPZWQ /Qb '$ &#$ O\R @SQ]`R 7\T]`[ObW]\ AS`dWQSa b] [O^ O\R []\Wb]` bVS Z]QObW]\ O\R change of foreclosures within the Village. Â’ CbWZWhS RObO b] b`OQY bVS ^`]U`Saa O\R Z]QObW]\ ]T T]`SQZ]ac`Sa in the Village to develop targeted foreclosure prevention and disposition services through the Collaborative. Â’ 1`SObS O `SUWab`ObW]\ ^`]U`O[ T]` Q]\R][W\Wc[ O\R b]e\V]caS associations that collects contact information for the board and the number of rental units. Â’ 1][PW\S bVS W\T]`[ObW]\ T`][ P]bV ]T bVSaS STT]`ba b]( Â’ ;]\Wb]` bVS \c[PS` ]T T]`SQZ]ac`Sa eWbVW\ individual buildings.

Buffalo Grove Metra station 0SQOcaS ]T bVS c\W_cS ]^^]`bc\WbWSa ]TTS`SR Pg bVS 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS Metra station, the Village should explore the creation of a wellconnected multi-use district. To create such an area, the Village should explore a mixture of short-term and long term efforts.

Â’ CaS O\\cOZ `SUWab`ObW]\ `S_cW`S[S\ba b] RWaQcaa RObO b`S\Ra with associations and hear concerns and issues.

Â’ Short term: /a VWUVZWUVbSR W\ bVS DWZZOUSša % B`O\aWb AbObW]\ /`SO AbcRg eOZYW\U OQQSaa b] bVS abObW]\ Wa SOaWSab T`][ O`SOa b] bVS eSab eVWZS []`S RWTĂ€QcZb T`][ bVS a]cbV O\R SOab C\W\Q]`^]`ObSR areas to the south include everything from single-family homes to O^O`b[S\ba 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS aV]cZR Q`SObS Q]\\SQbW]\a bVOb ZW\Y bVWa area with both the train station and the industrial and commercial O`SOa OZ]\U 2SS`Ă€SZR >O`YeOg

’ E]`Y eWbV bVS 1]ZZOP]`ObWdS b] RSdSZ]^ W\bS`dS\bW]\ ab`ObSUWSa for particularly “troubled� properties.

Â’ Long term: Pursue the development and redevelopment of areas near the train station into mixed-use developments that provide multi-family housing and retail options while preserving the employment base.

Â’ 2SdSZ]^ PS\QV[O`Ya WRS\bWTgW\U eVS\ O ^`]^S`bg Wa Q]\aWRS`SR Âśb`]cPZSR¡ \c[PS` ^S`QS\bOUS ]T T]`SQZ]ac`Sa \c[PS` percentage of rentals, number of different rental owners, utility shutoffs).

HOUSING POLICY PLAN: BUFFALO GROVE

55

Conclusion Implement rental licensing 7\ =Qb]PS` bVS DWZZOUS OR]^bSR O `S\bOZ ZWQS\aW\U ^`]U`O[ While implementing this program, the Village should explore the \SSR T]` ZO\RZ]`R SRcQObW]\ Oa ^O`b ]T bVS \Se `S_cW`S[S\ba 7T acQV O ^`]U`O[ e]cZR ^`]dS caSTcZ 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS aV]cZR ^O`b\S` eWbV ]bVS` Collaborative members to operate its landlord education program. AcQV O ^`]U`O[ Q]cZR PSQ][S []`S Obb`OQbWdS b] ZO\RZ]`Ra WT bWSR to incentives for participation. Moreover, the Village should ensure that its rental license program collects information on ownership, management, inspection status, and unit type for all rental units a] bVOb RObO QO\ PS Q][PW\SR O\R O\OZghSR ]\ O `SUW]\OZ aQOZS 0g Q]ZZSQbW\U bVS aO[S W\T]`[ObW]\ W\ bVS aO[S T]`[Ob 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS QO\ work with its partners on common rental housing issues, including addressing problem landlords across a number of communities. Assist senior homeowners /a 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS QVO\USa ]dS` bVS \Sfb ! gSO`a ]\S ]T bVS []ab important trends will be aging homeowners. While the Village’s multi-family options provide alternatives for homeowners looking b] R]e\aWhS [O\g eWZZ eO\b b] `S[OW\ W\ bVSW` V][Sa BVS`ST]`S the Village should work with the Collaborative to develop “aging in place” information for residents which would identify important []RWÀQObW]\a \SSRSR b] W[^`]dS OQQSaaWPWZWbg SZW[W\ObS PO``WS`a O\R create safer spaces. Maintaining housing supply ;O\g Z]QOZ c\Wba OTT]`ROPZS b] V]caSV]ZRa SO`\W\U ZSaa bVO\ # could be lost as the economy improves because of the Village’s attractiveness for growth and rising property values. Therefore, the community should locally identify the most threatened units and work with the Collaborative to preserve this housing stock or identify opportunities for replacement stock to be provided within the Village. Sustainability and affordability CbWZWbg O\R [OW\bS\O\QS Q]aba O`S YSg Q][^]\S\ba ]T O\g V]caSV]ZR¹a ability to afford a unit. Therefore, working with the Collaborative, the DWZZOUS aV]cZR WRS\bWTg Tc\RW\U a]c`QSa T]` S\S`Ug STÀQWS\Qg ^`]XSQba for both single-family and multi-family structures. Once funding is WRS\bWÀSR 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS aV]cZR RSdSZ]^ ^`]U`O[a eVWQV T]Qca ]\ cost-burdened households and in areas with high foreclosure rates.

BVS DWZZOUS ]T 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS TOQSa bVS QVOZZS\US ]T POZO\QW\U U`SS\ÀSZR O\R `SRSdSZ]^[S\b U`]ebV W\ bVS Q][W\U RSQORSa particularly given a focus on creating neighborhood centers. With the projected mixture of housing types and ages, the Village can create a well-balanced housing market by pursuing short-term strategies to mitigate the impact of foreclosures and long-term development opportunities, particularly in the areas around its train stations and major roads.

56

Source: CMAP.

57

Housing Policy Plan: Mount Prospect Project Summary Mount Prospect is a prosperous suburban community with a diverse range of housing types, strong residential neighborhoods, O\R SfQSZZS\b aQV]]Za 0S\SĂ€bW\U T`][ Wba ^`W[S Z]QObW]\ W\ bVS [Sb`]^]ZWbO\ O`SOša X]P `WQV <]`bVeSab 1]``WR]` bVS DWZZOUS VOa a broad range of employers and a solid tax base to fund municipal services.

0SQOcaS ]T Wba ^`W[S Z]QObW]\ ;]c\b >`]a^SQb `SaWRS\ba O\R businesses access a number of key regional transportation assets, including commuter rail, highways, and bus service. While essentially built-out, the Village continues to take advantage of new opportunities for growth and redevelopment, most notably in its downtown area that features shops, restaurants, and residences near its Metra station. A recent Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) grant is funding an implementation plan to determine future land use and development in downtown. Even with these assets, Mount Prospect faces challenges as it plans T]` bVS Tcbc`S W\QZcRW\U( ’ < c[S`]ca [cZbW TO[WZg V]caW\U Q][^ZSfSa PcWZb PSbeSS\ '$ and 1980 are aging and in need of ongoing rehabilitation and upgrading. ’ An aging population raises questions about the best ways to accommodate potential future growth. ’ The Village must weigh the pros and cons of annexing unincorporated land on its southern border. ’ The nation’s foreclosure crisis continues to impact parts of the Village.

BVWa `S^]`b O\OZghSa ;]c\b >`]a^SQbša SfWabW\U V]caW\U Q]\RWbW]\a and makes projections about possible future housing needs. Most W[^]`bO\bZg bVS `S^]`b Ă€\Ra bVOb bVS DWZZOUS eWZZ Q]\bW\cS b] PS desirable, with prospective owners and renters interested in moving b] bVS Q][[c\Wbg @SQ]U\WhW\U bVOb Oa O acPabO\bWOZZg PcWZb ]cb community Mount Prospect must balance the preservation of its character with future demand, the report concludes with a series of `SQ][[S\RObW]\a T]QcaSR ]\( Â’ Addressing ongoing housing rehabilitation needs. Â’ Dealing with foreclosures and their aftermath. Â’ Creating opportunities for new senior housing. Â’ 3 f^Z]`W\U RSdSZ]^[S\b O\R `SRSdSZ]^[S\b opportunities in southern Mount Prospect, including unincorporated areas. Â’ 1 `SObW\U W\WbWObWdSa b] W\Q`SOaS bVS S\S`Ug STĂ€QWS\Qg ]T \Se O\R SfWabW\U V]caW\U

58

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

Existing Conditions Mount Prospect jobs, 2006-10

Demographic and Economic Trends Located in northwestern Cook County, the Village of Mount >`]a^SQb Wa P]`RS`SR Pg >`]a^SQb 6SWUVba b] bVS \]`bV) 2Sa >ZOW\Sa b] bVS SOab) 3ZY 5`]dS DWZZOUS b] bVS a]cbV) O\R /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba b] the west. ;]c\b >`]a^SQb¹a ^]^cZObW]\ SaaS\bWOZZg ZSdSZSR ]TT Rc`W\U bVS À`ab RSQORS ]T bVS ab 1S\bc`g Ob O`]c\R ## `SaWRS\ba BVS 1VWQOU] Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) produced population O\R V]caSV]ZR ^`]XSQbW]\a Oa ^O`b ]T 5= B= " bVS aSdS\ Q]c\bg region’s comprehensive plan for sustainable prosperity for the next 30 years. " BVSaS ÀUc`Sa W\RWQObS bVOb WT 5= B= " Wa W[^ZS[S\bSR and if the Village takes advantage of its numerous assets, its ^]^cZObW]\ Q]cZR `WaS b] $! !#" Pg " O\ W\Q`SOaS ]T O^^`]fW[ObSZg 9,100 residents. # As this report points out later, however, the Village currently lacks the capacity to add this many residents without ORRWbW]\OZ ZO\R O`SO ]` QVO\USa b] Wba h]\W\U Q]RS 2SQWaW]\a W\ this regard, of course, would have to be carefully considered by the DWZZOUS 0]O`R O\R c\RS`bOYS\ eWbV O\ SgS b] bVS W[^OQba bVOb U`]ebV VOa ]\ ^cPZWQ W\T`Oab`cQbc`S O\R aS`dWQS RSZWdS`g 7b Wa _cWbS ^]aaWPZS that housing demand may exceed supply well into the future, a fact that could put upward pressure on housing prices.

2006

2010

RETAIL TRADE

ADMINISTRATION AND SUPPORT, WASTE MANAGEMENT

WHOLESALE TRADE

EDUCATIONAL SERVICES

MANUFACTURING

PROFESSIONAL, SCIENTIFIC, AND TECHNICAL SERVICES

ACCOMMODATION AND FOOD SERVICES

MANAGEMENT OF COMPANIES AND ENTERPRISES

Population and change in population, 2000 and 2010 Population, 2000 (Census)

56,264

Population, 2010 (Census)

54,167

Change, 2000-10

-2,097

Change as %, 2000-10

-3.7%

GO TO 2040 Projection, 2040

63,354

Source: U.S. Census and CMAP GO TO 2040 projections.

The Village’s employment base is diverse and includes jobs in a wide variety of sectors including administration, wholesale trade, manufacturing, and education. Retail jobs comprised almost 20 ^S`QS\b ]T Z]QOZ S[^Z]g[S\b W\ 0cTTSbSR Pg bVS `SQSaaW]\ overall employment in the Village decreased somewhat between $ O\R BVS DWZZOUS¹a ZSORW\U S[^Z]gS`a W\QZcRS 1O`S[O`Y 1c[[W\a /ZZWa]\ O\R 0]aQV B]]Z 1]`^]`ObW]\

14 See http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/2040. 15 See the Appendix for more information about these projections.

FINANCE AND INSURANCE

INFORMATION 0%

5%

10%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, LED Data, On-the-Map.

15%

20%

HOUSING POLICY PLAN: MOUNT PROSPECT

59

Where Do Mount Prospect’s Workers Live? While many employees commute to Mount Prospect from surrounding communities, the Village’s highway and transit access allows 13 percent of workers to come from Chicago. That Chicago is the largest source of workers is common to many communities in the region, as both highway and rail systems are designed, in part, to

[]dS ^S]^ZS b] O\R T`][ bVS `SUW]\¹a ZO`USab QWbg 0S\SÀbW\U from the local job base, nine percent of people working in Mount >`]a^SQb OZa] ZWdS W\ ;]c\b >`]a^SQb O ÀUc`S ]\ ^O` eWbV ]bVS` Collaborative communities.

Where do Mount Prospect’s workers live, 2010?

Where do Mount Prospect’s workers live? Job counts by distance/direction in 2010, all workers

13% N 13%

28%

9%

CHICAGO

9%

MOUNT PROSPECT

6%

ARLINGTON HEIGHTS

4%

DES PLAINES

3%

PALATINE

2%

SCHAUMBURG

26%

REMAINDER OF COOK COUNTY

9%

LAKE COUNTY

28%

ALL OTHER LOCATIONS

26%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, LED Data, On-the-Map.

NW

9%

NE 4,000 2,400

6%

4%

800 W

E

3% 2% SW

SE

S

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, LED Data, On-the-Map.

60

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

Where Do Mount Prospect’s Residents Work? Chicago is the region’s largest employment hub and for many communities, including Mount Prospect, the most common RSabW\ObW]\ T]` Q][[cbW\U `SaWRS\ba ASdS\bSS\ ^S`QS\b ]T residents work in Chicago, the highest percentage among the 1]ZZOP]`ObWdS AcQV Q]\QS\b`ObW]\ ZS\Ra Q`SRS\QS b] bVS DWZZOUS¹a focus on reviving downtown with transit oriented development. 1WbWhS\a OZa] Q][[cbS b] X]Pa W\ \]`bVeSabS`\ 1]]Y 1]c\bg

W\QZcRW\U ;]c\b >`]a^SQb /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba 2Sa >ZOW\Sa 3ZY 5`]dS DWZZOUS O\R AQVOc[Pc`U BVOb aSdS\ ^S`QS\b ]T OZZ S[^Z]gSR Mount Prospect residents work in the community is typical of most 1]ZZOP]`ObWdS Q][[c\WbWSa >S`QS\bOUSa T]` T]c` ]T bVS ÀdS b]e\a `O\US PSbeSS\ aWf ^S`QS\b O\R \W\S ^S`QS\b 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS ;]c\b >`]a^SQb >OZObW\S O\R @]ZZW\U ;SOR]ea eWbV /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba¹ " percent as the only outlier.

Where do Mount Prospect’s residents work, 2010?

Where do Mount Prospect’s residents work? Job counts by distance/direction in 2010, all workers

17%

N

13% 17%

CHICAGO NW

7%

ARLINGTON HEIGHTS

7%

MOUNT PROSPECT

4%

DES PLAINES

4%

ELK GROVE VILLAGE

4%

SCHAUMBURG

35%

REMAINDER OF COOK COUNTY

9%

LAKE COUNTY

NE

7%

9%

13%

ALL OTHER LOCATIONS

35%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, LED Data, On-the-Map.

7,000

7%

1,400

W

4,200 E

4% 4% 4%

SW

SE

S

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, LED Data, On-the-Map.

HOUSING POLICY PLAN: MOUNT PROSPECT

61

Current Housing Analysis While Mount Prospect contains a mix of single- and multi-family housing, single-family detached housing is the predominant housing bg^S /P]cb #% ^S`QS\b ]T Z]QOZ c\Wba O`S aW\UZS TO[WZg eVWZS !% ^S`QS\b O`S [cZbW TO[WZg /QQ]`RW\U b] /[S`WQO\ 1][[c\Wbg Ac`dSg /1A RObO T`][ $ bVS [OX]`Wbg ]T aW\UZS TO[WZg V][Sa eWbVW\ ;]c\b >`]a^SQb O`S ]e\S` ]QQc^WSR '$ ^S`QS\b eVWZS [cZbW TO[WZg ReSZZW\Ua bS\R b] PS `S\bS` ]QQc^WSR $# ^S`QS\b ;cZbW family units are generally concentrated in the southern portion of bVS DWZZOUS eWbVW\ QZ]aS ^`]fW[Wbg b] bVS 7 ' Q]``WR]` / aWU\WĂ€QO\b amount of this housing was developed in unincorporated Cook 1]c\bg O\R acPaS_cS\bZg O\\SfSR W\b] bVS DWZZOUS Rc`W\U bVS '$ a and 1970s. The portion of households spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs increased between 2000 and 2010. For `S\bS`a bVS ^`]^]`bW]\ W\Q`SOaSR T`][ ! ^S`QS\b b] OP]cb " percent. This ten-percentage point increase is consistent with the change seen among the other four towns over the past decade. For owners, the number of households paying more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs increased from about 22 percent b] !# ^S`QS\b AW[WZO` b] ]bVS` 1]ZZOP]`ObWdS [S[PS`a bVWa QVO\US was driven by an almost doubling of the number of homeowners ^OgW\U []`S bVO\ # ^S`QS\b ]T bVSW` W\Q][Sa ]\ V]caW\U Q]aba BVS increasing number of cost-burdened owners and renters in Mount Prospect over the last decade is consistent with national trends. /QQ]`RW\U b] O\OZgaWa Pg 6O`dO`R C\WdS`aWbg ÂśbVS `SQSaaW]\ ­ RWR little to reduce housing outlays for many Americans,â€? due in part to declining incomes, slow employment growth, and more stringent credit requirements. $

What is “Affordable Housing?� What constitutes affordable housing varies from household to household, as the measure is relative. For this report, the following U.S. Census guidelines were used: š “Affordable housing� is housing that costs no more than 30 percent of household income (including utilities, insurance, and taxes). š “Unaffordable housing� is housing that costs between 30 percent and 50 percent of household income. š “Severely unaffordable housing� is housing that costs more than 50 percent of household income.

Mount Prospect housing type by tenure OWNER-OCCUPIED 12,000

RENTER-OCCUPIED

367 11,257

10,000

8,000 4,955 6,000

4,000

2,649 2,000

0

157 998

SINGLE FAMILY

TOWNHOME

Source: American Community Survey 2006-10.

16 Joint Center for Housing Studies. (June, 2012). State of the Nation’s Housing 2012. Harvard University.

MULTIFAMILY

13 51 OTHER

62

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

Mount Prospect tenure by units in structure

Mount Prospect tenure by household income, in number of occupied units

OWNER-OCCUPIED

RENTER-OCCUPIED

OWNER-OCCUPIED

RENTER-OCCUPIED

1 (DETACHED) 4,000 1 (ATTACHED) 3,500

2 UNITS 3 OR 4 UNITS

3,000

5 TO 9 UNITS

2,500

10 TO 19 UNITS

2,000

20 TO 49 UNITS

1,500

50 OR MORE UNITS 1,000 MOBILE HOME 500 BOAT, RV, VAN, ETC. 0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

Source: American Community Survey 2006-10.

0 <15k

<35k

<50k

Source: American Community Survey 2006-10.

Mount Prospect rental and owner housing affordability OWNER HOUSING

12%

RENTAL HOUSING

17%

22% 23% 66%

AFFORDABLE

UNAFFORDABLE

Source: American Community Survey 2006-10.

60%

SEVERELY UNAFFORDABLE

<75k

<100k

<150k

150k+

HOUSING POLICY PLAN: MOUNT PROSPECT

63

Current Ownership Housing BVS [O`YSb T]` ]e\S` V]caW\U W\ ;]c\b >`]a^SQb `Sร SQba be] RWabW\Qb bg^Sa ]T V]caSV]ZRa( bV]aS eV] ]e\ O V][S eWbV O mortgage and those who own a home without a mortgage. Whether O\ ]e\S` QO``WSa O []`bUOUS aWU\Wร QO\bZg W[^OQba eVWQV W\Q][S groups can afford the unit. Owner units for households earning less bVO\ !# O`S ]\Zg OTT]`ROPZS b] bVWa W\Q][S U`]c^ WT bVS ]e\S` does not carry a mortgage, while units affordable to households SO`\W\U []`S bVO\ # bg^WQOZZg `S_cW`S bVS ]e\S` b] QO``g O []`bUOUS 7\bcWbWdSZg bVWa RWTTS`S\QS [OYSa aS\aS Oa ]e\S`a eV] do not carry a mortgage typically pay less in total housing costs, allowing the owner to use the unspent money for other household Sf^S\aSa 7\ ;]c\b >`]a^SQb bVS ZWYSZWV]]R ]T ]e\W\U O V][S eWbV or without a mortgage depends in part on age. Almost two-thirds ]T ]e\S`a eWbV]cb []`bUOUSa O`S ]dS` bVS OUS ]T $# eVWZS ]dS` be] bVW`Ra ]T ]e\S`a eWbV []`bUOUSa O`S g]c\US` bVO\ ## BVS`ST]`S the bulk of Mount Prospectโ s supply of owner units affordable to V]caSV]ZRa SO`\W\U ZSaa bVO\ # ^S` gSO` O`S ]QQc^WSR Pg seniors, while the working age population occupies most of the units OTT]`ROPZS b] V]caSV]ZRa SO`\W\U []`S bVO\ # ^S` gSO`

Mount Prospect comparison of owner household incomes with occupied units affordable at each income level 2010

AV]`bOUSa SfWab W\ bVS ]e\S` V]caW\U ac^^Zg T]` W\Q][S U`]c^a SO`\W\U ZSaa bVO\ # O\R []`S bVO\ O\\cOZZg BVSaS shortages force households to purchase homes outside of their W\Q][S ZSdSZa C^^S` W\Q][S TO[WZWSa ^c`QVOaS c\Wba bVOb [Og PS more affordable to lower income households, thereby diminishing bVS OPWZWbg ]T bVSaS [WRRZS W\Q][S U`]c^a b] ร \R V]caW\U OTT]`ROPZS b] bVS[ 1]\dS`aSZg V]caSV]ZRa [OYW\U ZSaa bVO\ # bVOb purchase homes often spend more than 30% of their income on housing costs.

Current Rental Housing @S\bS`a SO`\W\U PSbeSS\ # O\R # O`S eSZZ aS`dSR Pg ;]c\b >`]a^SQbยนa SfWabW\U `S\bOZ V]caW\U Ac^^Zg RS[O\R UO^a however, exist at the bottom and top ends of the Villageโ s rental [O`YSb AV]`bOUSa T]` V]caSV]ZRa SO`\W\U []`S bVO\ # annually result in renters at these income levels occupying units OTT]`ROPZS b] # b] # V]caSV]ZRa @S\bS`a SO`\W\U ZSaa bVO\ # [cab ZWdS W\ c\Wba bVOb Q]ab []`S bVO\ ! ^S`QS\b ]T bVSW` W\Q][S /QQ]`RW\U b] $ /1A RObO \W\S ^S`QS\b ]T bVS DWZZOUSยนa `S\bS`a O`S ]ZRS` bVO\ $# O\R \W\S ^S`QS\b ]T bVS DWZZOUSยนa Q]ab Pc`RS\SR `S\bS`a O`S ]ZRS` bVO\ $# BVS aW[WZO`Wbg W\ percentages indicates that senior renters are not disproportionately likely to be paying more than 30 percent of their income on housing. Mount Prospect comparison of rental household incomes with occupied units affordable at each income level 2010

ACTUAL HOUSEHOLDS AT INCOME LEVEL 2010

ACTUAL HOUSEHOLDS AT INCOME LEVEL 2010

ESTIMATED OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS AFFORDABLE AT INCOME LEVEL (WITHOUT MORTGAGE) 2010

ESTIMATED OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS AFFORDABLE AT INCOME LEVEL 2010 2,500

ESTIMATED OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS AFFORDABLE AT INCOME LEVEL (WITH MORTGAGE) 2010 4,000

2,000 3,500 3,000 1,500 2,500 2,000

1,000

1,500 1,000

500

500 0

<$15

<$35

<$50

<$75

<$100

<$150

$150+

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese Envision Tomorrow Balanced Housing Model using ACS 2006-10 inputs.

0

<$15

<$35

<$50

<$75

<$100

<$150

$150+

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese Envision Tomorrow Balanced Housing Model using ACS 2006-10 inputs.

64

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

Today’s Market Segments and Market Preferences BVS ZO`USab U`]c^ O`S ÂśC^aQOZS /dS\cSa ¡ OTĂ cS\b V]caSV]ZRa This analysis used tools developed by a leading, well-known market `SaSO`QV Ă€`[ 3\dW`]\[S\bOZ AgabS[a @SaSO`QV 7\abWbcbS 3A@7 b] who prefer a variety of housing types and are more likely to invest in their housing through remodeling or landscaping. The enrich the understanding of the housing types preferred by families \Sfb ZO`USab U`]c^ Âś6WUV A]QWSbg ¡ Wa [ORS c^ ]T VWUVS` W\Q][S bVOb ZWdS W\ ;]c\b >`]a^SQb BVS POaWQ c\Wb ]T bVS 3A@7 1][[c\Wbg households distinguished by their interest in single-family homes. BO^Sab`g agabS[ Wa bVS \SWUVP]`V]]R POaSR ]\ C A 1S\aca PZ]QY ÂśAS\W]` AbgZSa¡ `SaWRS\ba VOdS V]caW\U ^`STS`S\QSa Oa RWdS`aS Oa U`]c^a 3A@7 VOa QZOaaWĂ€SR SdS`g \SWUVP]`V]]R W\ bVS Q]c\b`g Oa their circumstances, residing in single-family homes, retirement ]\S ]T $# [O`YSb aSU[S\ba BVSaS aSU[S\ba O`S bVS\ Q][PW\SR W\b] V][Sa ]` VWUV `WaSa /P]cb ^S`QS\b ]T V]caSV]ZRa O`S QZOaaWĂ€SR ]\S ]T :WTS;]RS U`]c^a ASU[S\ba O\R U`]c^a O`S OaaWU\SR b] \SWUVP]`V]]Ra Pg a]`bW\U []`S bVO\ $ Obb`WPcbSa W\QZcRW\U W\Q][S Oa Âś5Z]POZ @]]ba ¡ `S^`SaS\bW\U bVS DWZZOUSša U`]eW\U /aWO\ ^]^cZObW]\ AcQV V]caSV]ZRa bS\R b] VOdS QVWZR`S\ O\R `S\b W\ employment, home value, housing type, education, household composition, age, and other key determinants of consumer behavior. [cZbW c\Wb PcWZRW\Ua 4W\OZZg ÂśA]Z] /Qba¡ O`S US\S`OZZg g]c\U aW\UZS or roommate households who prefer a mobile, urban lifestyle and <SWUVP]`V]]Ra eWbV bVS []ab aW[WZO` QVO`OQbS`WabWQa O`S Q][PW\SR denser housing options. while neighborhoods showing divergent characteristics are separated. EVOb R]Sa bVWa [SO\ T]` ;]c\b >`]a^SQbša Tcbc`S V]caW\U RS[O\R- <W\Sbg SWUVb ^S`QS\b ]T ;]c\b >`]a^SQbša V]caSV]ZRa TOZZ W\b] Ă€dS ]T First, it means that the majority of current residents have at least a moderate propensity to live in a compact neighborhood (e.g. bVS :WTS;]RS U`]c^a( C^aQOZS /dS\cSa 6WUV A]QWSbg AS\W]` AbgZSa containing a range of housing types that encourage walking to retail 5Z]POZ @]]ba O\R A]Z] /Qba stores, neighborhood amenities, other homes, and transit lines). ASQ]\RZg bVS U`]c^a VSZ^ Q]\Ă€`[ O\R RSS^S\ W\T]`[ObW]\ UZSO\SR T`][ C A 1S\aca RObO BVS aSU[S\ba T]` C^aQOZS /dS\cSa O\R 6WUV A]QWSbg [OYS c^ ]dS` $ ^S`QS\b ]T ;]c\b >`]a^SQb V]caSV]ZRa Q]``Sa^]\RW\U b] /1A RObO ^]W\bW\U b] [WRRZS O\R c^^S` W\Q][S owner households in single-family homes as the most common current household type in the Village. Finally, while not an exact guide to the future, understanding the types of housing desired by the most common LifeMode groups in Mount Prospect can assist in planning for future housing demand. Mount Prospect Lifemode groups LIFEMODE GROUPS

INCOME

FAMILY TYPE

AVERAGE AGE

% OF TOTAL

HOUSING TYPES

TENURE

Middle-upper

Mixed

43

34.2%

Single family, townhome, multi-family

Own

High Society

Upper

Married couples

39

27.7%

Single family

Own

Senior Styles

Middle

Married no-kids

47

16.4%

Multi-unit and single family

Own/rent

Global Roots

Modest

Family mixed

31

10.4%

Multi-unit and single family

Rent/own

Middle-upper

Singles-shared

34

9.3%

Multi-unit, townhome, and single family

Rent/own

Upscale Avenues

Solo Acts

Source: CMAP analysis of ESRI Community Tapestry Segments.

HOUSING POLICY PLAN: MOUNT PROSPECT

65

Projecting Future Housing Needs 6]caW\U ^ZO\\W\U \SSRa b] bOYS W\b] OQQ]c\b bV]aS eV] [WUVb PS interested to live in the community in the future. After developing an understanding of the current housing market in Mount Prospect, the following sections look at possible future housing demand in bVS DWZZOUS 0ZS\RW\U b]USbVS` 1S\aca RObO 1;/>ยนa Z]QOZ ^]^cZObW]\ O\R V]caSV]ZR ^`]XSQbW]\a T]` bVS gSO` " O\R bVS 3A@7 BO^Sab`g market segment data, some realistic estimates can be made of who may want to live in Mount Prospect over the next 30 years and what types of housing they may demand.

Future Ownership Needs 7b Wa ^`]XSQbSR bVOb ]dS` bVS \Sfb ! gSO`a bVS \c[PS` ]T homeowners in Mount Prospect could increase at all seven income ZSdSZa 0OaSR ]\ bVSaS ^`]XSQbW]\a bVS DWZZOUSยนa Qc``S\b ac^^Zg ]T c\Wba T]` V]caSV]ZRa W\ bVS # b] !# O\R %# b] `O\USa e]cZR PS acTร QWS\b b] [SSb ^`]XSQbSR U`]ebV AV]`bOUSa V]eSdS` Q]cZR SfWab T]` OZZ ]bVS` W\Q][S U`]c^a EVWZS the projected shortfall of units for upper income households W\RWQObSa O ^]bS\bWOZ [O`YSb T]` c^aQOZS V][Sa O\R Q]\R][W\Wc[a [O\g OTร cS\b V]caSV]ZRa a^S\R ZSaa bVO\ ! percent of their income on housing costs. This propensity will both temper the projected demand for upper income units and reduce the number of units for middle and lower income households as upper income families occupy units that would otherwise be OTT]`ROPZS b] ZSaa OTร cS\b W\Q][S U`]c^a 7T bVS \c[PS` ]T V]caSV]ZRa SO`\W\U ZSaa bVO\ # U`]ea Wb Wa ^`]XSQbSR bVOb $# ^S`QS\b ]T V][S]e\S`a W\ bVWa W\Q][S U`]c^ could be spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing W\ " 9SS^ W\ [W\R V]eSdS` bVOb Z]e W\Q][S V]caSV]ZRa may, in some cases, have assets that allow them to meet ongoing housing expenses. This caveat is particularly important given the number of households in this income group projected to be ZSR Pg aS\W]` QWbWhS\a W\ " ;]`S]dS` bVS ร \O\QWOZ `SOZWbWSa ]T ^`]^S`bg OQ_cWaWbW]\ Q]\ab`cQbW]\ Q]aba O\R ร \O\QW\U [OYS bVS RSdSZ]^[S\b ]T ]e\S` V]caW\U Ob bVWa W\Q][S ZSdSZ dS`g RWTร QcZb 5WdS\ bVS ^`]XSQbSR OUSa O\R W\Q][Sa ]T ^]aaWPZS Tcbc`S ]e\S`a bVS 6WUV A]QWSbg O\R C^aQOZS /dS\cSa U`]c^a eWZZ ZWYSZg Q]\bW\cS b] R`WdS bVS [O`YSb W\ bVS DWZZOUSยนa OTร cS\b aW\UZS TO[WZg neighborhoods. As Mount Prospect residents across all income U`]c^a OUS ^O`bWQcZO`Zg bV]aS SO`\W\U PSZ]e %# [SSbW\U bVS \SSRa ]T aS\W]` `SaWRS\ba S U AS\W]` AbgZSa eWZZ PSQ][S particularly important. Members of this segment both own and rent in everything from single-family homes to multi-unit buildings, setting the stage for the Village to accommodate this group through new senior housing developments, including assisted living facilities, or efforts that allow seniors to age in place. The presence of A]Z] /Qba O\R C^aQOZS /dS\cSa W\ ;]c\b >`]a^SQb ]TTS` bVS ^`]a^SQb for market-driven townhomes and multi-family developments. While tear-downs may continue to occur, this activity typically does not add to the overall number of units in the Village and does not represent a way to consistently add upscale housing units.

Mount Prospect 2010 households and housing stock compared with 2040 owner demand OCCUPIED HOUSING STOCK AFFORDABLE AT 30% OF INCOME (2010) DEMAND AT INCOME LEVEL (2010) PROJECTED DEMAND AT INCOME LEVEL (2040) 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0

<$15

<$35

<$50

<$75

<$100

<$150

$150+

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese Envision Tomorrow Balanced Housing Model using ACS 2006-10 and CMAP GO TO 2040 household forecast inputs.

Mount Prospect projected owner demand by age of household <25

25-44

45-64

65+

4,000

3,500 3,000

2,500 2,000

1,500 1,000

500 0 <15k

<35k

<50k

<75k

<100k

<150k

150k+

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese Envision Tomorrow Balanced Housing Model using ACS 2006-10 and CMAP GO TO 2040 household forecast inputs.

66

Future Rental Needs Due to the continued desirability of Mount Prospect, the number of people interested in living in the Village could increase by 17 percent over the next 30 years. A portion of these people could want to rent units, pushing the estimated future demand for rental housing beyond the current affordable stock for all income groups, except T]` V]caSV]ZRa SO`\W\U PSbeSS\ !# O\R # BVWa aV]`bOUS creates opportunities for both lower and upper income rental housing. C\ZWYS eWbV ]e\S`a Tcbc`S V]caW\U T]` `S\bS`a ^O`bWQcZO`Zg Z]e O\R []RS`ObS W\Q][S `S\bS`a eWZZ \]b PS R`WdS\ Pg aS\W]`a 7\abSOR if the Village chooses to expand its rental housing stock, it will be important to develop housing that meets the needs of people age # b] "" BVWa OUS U`]c^ [Og UWdS bVS DWZZOUS O\ ]^^]`bc\Wbg b] P]bV further its downtown redevelopment and work with local employers b] [SSb ZOP]` T]`QS \SSRa BVS 5Z]POZ @]]ba O\R A]Z] /Qba [O`YSb segments correspond most closely to the projected future ages and incomes of Mount Prospect renters. Rental housing options for TO[WZWSa [OYW\U ZSaa bVO\ # e]cZR PS W[^]`bO\b T]` bVS 5Z]POZ Roots group, while continuing development efforts in downtown ;]c\b >`]a^SQb e]cZR PS Obb`OQbWdS b] a][S A]Z] /Qba

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

Mount Prospect 2010 households and housing stock compared with 2040 rental demand OCCUPIED HOUSING STOCK AFFORDABLE AT 30% OF INCOME (2010) DEMAND AT INCOME LEVEL (2010) PROJECTED DEMAND AT INCOME LEVEL (2040) 2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

<$15

<$35

<$50

<$75

<$100

<$150

$150+

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese Envision Tomorrow Balanced Housing Model using ACS 2006-10 and CMAP GO TO 2040 household forecast inputs.

Mount Prospect projected renter demand by age of household <25

25-44

45-64

65+

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

<15k

<35k

<50k

<75k

<100k

<150k

150k+

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese Envision Tomorrow Balanced Housing Model using ACS 2006-10 and CMAP GO TO 2040 household forecast inputs.

HOUSING POLICY PLAN: MOUNT PROSPECT

67

Future residents could demand small lot single-family homes and multi-family units.

Source: Village of Mount Prospect.

Source: CMAP.

Housing Demand by Type of Unit

Mount Prospect future balanced housing profile

When combining population and household projections for new owners and renters, one possible picture of future demand for ORRWbW]\OZ V]caW\U c\Wba W\ " O`WaSa EVOb S[S`USa Wa O ¶POZO\QSR V]caW\U· ^`]ÀZS eWbV RS[O\R T]` OP]cb " # ORRWbW]\OZ aW\UZS TO[WZg V][Sa !$ b]e\V][Sa O\R &!& [cZbW TO[WZg V][Sa PSbeSS\ \]e O\R " BVS RS[O\R T]` ORRWbW]\OZ RS\aS` c\Wb types, such as small single-family homes (lots of less than 8,000 s.f.), townhomes, and multi-family units would be driven by the increasing number of low- and middle-income seniors along with the working age rental population. As noted previously, these ÀUc`Sa O`S POaSR ]\ ^`]XSQbW]\a) `SOZ U`]ebV [Og PS []`S ]` ZSaa than estimated. The ultimate decision regarding if and how Mount Prospect may grow is a local one.

INCREMENTAL UNITS (INCLUDES NEW UNITS, REHABILITATED VACANT UNITS AND VACANCIES, 2010-2040) OCCUPIED HOUSING SUPPLY MOUNT PROSPECT, 2010 1,838

9,000 453

8,000

8,173 7,604

7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000

952

3,000

3,487

2,000

360

1,000 0

1,155

LARGE LOT SF

SMALL LOT SF

TOWNHOME

MULTIFAMILY

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese Envision Tomorrow Balanced Housing Model using ACS 2006-10 and CMAP GO TO 2040 household forecast inputs.

68

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

Capacity for Growth Estimated future population and household growth is only one half of the equation in considering future housing needs. As a community with numerous assets, it is understandable why many ^S]^ZS eO\b b] ZWdS W\ ;]c\b >`]a^SQb \]e O\R W\ bVS Tcbc`S 0cb b] plan for future households and housing, it is also important to look at capacity, particularly for a community that is substantially builtout. To understand the Village’s ability to accommodate projected U`]ebV be] YSg a]c`QSa ]T QO^OQWbg eS`S `SdWSeSR( RSdSZ]^[S\b redevelopment and vacancy.17

Mount Prospect maximum capacity by unit type

35% 35%

Development/Redevelopment Analysis The extent to which Mount Prospect could grow based on current ZO\R caS `SUcZObW]\a eOa O\OZghSR DOQO\b O\R `SRSdSZ]^OPZS parcels where the land value is greater than the improvement dOZcS eS`S WRS\bWÀSR caW\U 1]]Y 1]c\bg /aaSaa]` RObO BVS\ bVS Q][[c\Wbg¹a Qc``S\b h]\W\U O\R RSdSZ]^[S\b abO\RO`Ra eS`S O^^ZWSR b] ÀUc`S ]cb V]e [O\g c\Wba Q]cZR PS PcWZb W\ ;]c\b >`]a^SQb 0OaSR ]\ bVOb O\OZgaWa Wb eOa SabW[ObSR bVOb ;]c\b >`]a^SQb VOa bVS QO^OQWbg T]` OP]cb # " \Se ReSZZW\U c\Wba AWfbg ^S`QS\b ]T \Se c\Wba Q]cZR PS [cZbW TO[WZg eVWZS " ^S`QS\b Q]cZR be single-family homes. This capacity would allow the Village to OQQ][[]RObS OP]cb " ^S`QS\b ]T bVS ^`]XSQbSR ^]^cZObW]\ U`]ebV or 1,300 new residents.

LARGE LOT

5%

SMALL LOT SF

60%

MULTIFAMILY

5% 60%

Source: CMAP analysis of Mount Prospect zoning ordinance, Cook County assessor data.

Maximum capacity by unit type TYPE

UNITS

Large Lot SF (>8,000 s.f.)

182

Small Lot SF (<8,000 s.f.)

25

Townhome

307

Multi-family

-

Mobile Home/Other

-

TOTAL

514

Source: CMAP analysis of Mount Prospect zoning ordinance, Cook County assessor data.

17 See the Appendix for more information about the methodology.

HOUSING POLICY PLAN: MOUNT PROSPECT

Vacancy Analysis 0SQOcaS ]T bVS Qc``S\b V]caW\U [O`YSb [O\g V][Sa \]e dOQO\b may not be so in the future, allowing people to move in without PcWZRW\U \Se c\Wba /QQ]`RW\U b] $ /1A SabW[ObSa ;]c\b Prospect has approximately 1,307 vacant units, or about six ^S`QS\b ]T OZZ V][Sa W\ bVS DWZZOUS <]`[OZ Z]\U bS`[ dOQO\Qg `ObSa T]` O ab`]\U Q][[c\Wbg O`S % " ^S`QS\b O[]\U `S\bOZ c\Wba O\R # ^S`QS\b O[]\U ]e\S` ]QQc^WSR c\Wba 18 5WdS\ bVS \c[PS` of local owner and rental units and a healthy housing market, the DWZZOUS aV]cZR ]\Zg VOdS O^^`]fW[ObSZg $! dOQO\b c\Wba ]` O bV`SS ^S`QS\b dOQO\Qg `ObS BVS`ST]`S $%$ Qc``S\bZg dOQO\b c\Wba Q]cZR be occupied in the future as Mount Prospect grows and the market abOPWZWhSa BVWa QO^OQWbg e]cZR OZZ]e bVS DWZZOUS b] OQQ][[]RObS about 19 percent of the projected growth, or about 1,800 new residents. Mount Prospect breakdown of current vacant units VACANT UNITS IN HEALTHY MARKET CURRENT VACANT UNITS TO BE OCCUPIED

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0 Source: CMAP analysis of ACS 2006-10.

18 See ^jjf1&&mmm%`Z^i%^XhlXh[%\[k&i_j\i&`Z^i%^XhlXh[%\[k&Ã’b\i&m'.$.%f[].

Townhomes help provide additional ownership options. Source: Village of Mount Prospect.

69

70

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

Future Housing Conclusions BOYW\U W\b] OQQ]c\b QO^OQWbg OdOWZOPZS c\RS` RSdSZ]^[S\b redevelopment and vacancy, Mount Prospect can accommodate 33 percent of the projected housing units that could be desired by Tcbc`S `SaWRS\ba POaSR ]\ bVS " ^`]XSQbW]\a BVWa U`]ebV Q]cZR add about 3,100 additional residents. The remaining approximately $ ^S]^ZS `S^`SaS\b c\[Sb RS[O\R ^S]^ZS eV] eO\b b] ZWdS in Mount Prospect but would not be able to because of a lack of available units. Many of these people would be looking for small lot single-family homes, townhomes, and multi-family units. The Village’s current codes likely would not be able to accommodate this future demand without changes.

Mount Prospect demand vs. vacancy and capacity by housing type, units 2010-40

0OaSR ]\ bVSaS ÀUc`Sa bVS QV]WQS ]T WT O\R V]e b] U`]e Wa O Q`WbWQOZ one. The Village must carefully balance the preservation of its character with future demand when considering the best path for the community, planning with an eye to the impacts that growth can have on public infrastructure and service delivery. Regardless of how the Village chooses to proceed, policy makers are encouraged to use these statistics as a guide, focusing on the relative number of aW\UZS TO[WZg [cZbW TO[WZg O\R b]e\V][S c\Wba bVOb b]USbVS` `Sà SQb a balanced housing market.

1,400

DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY (2010) VACANT UNITS (2010) ESTIMATED INCREASE IN DEMAND FOR UNITS (2040) 1,800

1,600

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0 LARGE LOT SF SMALL LOT SF

TOWNHOME

MULTIFAMILY

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese Envision Tomorrow Balanced Housing Model, Cook County Property Assessor data, and U.S. Census Bureau inputs.

Balancing character and growth is important. Source: Village of Mount Prospect.

71

HOUSING POLICY PLAN: MOUNT PROSPECT

Sustainability 7\ % bVS 1S\bS` T]` <SWUVP]`V]]R BSQV\]Z]Ug 1<B ^`]RcQSR O\ S\S`Ug O\R S[WaaW]\a ^`]ÀZS T]` ;]c\b >`]a^SQb Oa ^O`b ]T bVS ;c\WQW^OZ 3\S`Ug >`]ÀZS >`]XSQb 0OaSR ]\ bVS `S^]`b bVS DWZZOUS S[WbbSR O\ SabW[ObSR ! #& [Sb`WQ b]\a ;B ]T QO`P]\ RW]fWRS (CO2e) per capita, approximately eight percent less than County S[WaaW]\a ^S` QO^WbO " &$ ;B 1= S EWbV ' ^S`QS\b ]T Z]QOZ emissions coming from electricity and natural gas usage along with b`O\a^]`bObW]\ O\g T]`eO`R bVW\YW\U V]caW\U ^ZO\ aV]cZR O\OZghS these areas. The table highlights residential natural gas and energy usage in the Village and Cook County in 2007. At that time, the average Mount Prospect household spent less on energy costs than the average Cook County household due to lower natural gas usage. One key part ]T Z]QOZ S\S`Ug caOUS Wa bVS V][S VSObW\U a]c`QS 0OaSR ]\ RObO T`][ bVS $ /1A \Obc`OZ UOa Wa bVS R][W\O\b Z]QOZ V][S VSObW\U source, used by 81 percent of households. Electricity provides heat T]` O ZO`US` ^S`QS\bOUS ]T `S\bS`a bVO\ ]e\S`a !" ^S`QS\b da & percent). As it relates to transportation, Mount Prospect households drive more miles (vehicle miles traveled or VMT) than the Cook County OdS`OUS $ $%" dS`aca " %" `Sa^SQbWdSZg OQQ]`RW\U b] % 1<B RObO 0SQOcaS ]T bVS ORRWbW]\OZ [WZSOUS `SaWRS\ba ^Og O^^`]fW[ObSZg $89 more per month in transportation costs than the average Q]c\bg `SaWRS\b POaSR ]\ bVS Qc``S\b 7\bS`\OZ @SdS\cS AS`dWQS 7@A mileage reimbursement rate. Research by Reid Ewing and others W\ bVS 8]c`\OZ ]T C`PO\ >ZO\\W\U O\R 2SdSZ]^[S\b VOa aV]e\ bVOb bVS PWUUSab TOQb]` W\ `SRcQW\U D;B Wa T`][ œ^cbbW\U ]TÀQSa aV]^a restaurants, residences, and other codependent activities in close proximity to each other.�19 As discussed previously, the gap between projected housing demand and current capacity could put upward pressure on housing prices for owners and renters over the next 30 years. That said, energy STÀQWS\Qg O\R acabOW\OPWZWbg STT]`ba QO\ VSZ^ [WbWUObS `WaW\U V]caW\U costs. The Village’s municipal aggregation program, which may offer residents lower electricity rates, could help cost burdened renters O\R ]e\S`a A] b]] QO\ O Q][[Wb[S\b b] W[^ZS[S\bW\U S\S`Ug STÀQWS\b RSaWU\a Oa ^O`b ]T `SVOPWZWbObW]\ O\R \Se Q]\ab`cQbW]\ A focus on compact neighborhoods, including transit oriented development around the Mount Prospect Metra station, offers residents ways to reduce transportation costs. Village support for employer assisted housing can also help reduce transportation costs by encouraging residents to work in Mount Prospect.

(0 8c\h_ZXd JeZ_\jo e] :_l_b <dĂś_d\\hi% KhX]Ă’Z >\d\hXj\[ Yo D_n\[$Li\ ;\l\befc\dji Ă… J_n$ Region Study Using Consistent Built Environmental Measures. Journal of Urban Planning, October 2010.

Housing and Transportation @d h\Z\dj o\Xhi# j^\ :EK [\l\bef\[ Xd Xbj\hdXj_l\ mXo je [\Ă’d\ “affordable housingâ€? as housing that costs no more than 45 percent of both housing and transportation costs. According to Ă’Ăľkh\i ]hec :EK# .- f\hZ\dj e] jof_ZXb h\Ăľ_edXb ^eki\^eb[i X 2.73 person household earning $60,289) would pay more than 45 percent of household income on housing and transportation costs combined when living in Mount Prospect. This alternate c\Xikh\ Ă’d[i b\ii X]]eh[XYb\ ^eki_dĂľ _d Dekdj Gheif\Zj j^Xd j^\ traditional U.S. Census method.

Residential energy use by municipality compared to Cook County, 2007 COOK COUNTY

MOUNT PROSPECT

7,692 kWh

8,691 kWh

$828

$935

1,130 Therms

810 Therms

Average Annual $ for Natural Gas per Household*

$1,274

$719

Average Annual Energy Costs

$2,102

$1,654

Average Electricity Use per Household Average Annual $ for Electricity per Household* Average Natural Gas Use per Household

JekhZ\1 :EK <d\hĂśo :ecckd_jo GheĂ’b\ *Calculated using average residential sales per kilowatt hour (kWh) (Illinois Commerce Commission Utility Sales Statistics 2007).

72

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

Urban Design Focus Area Design Workshop 7\ 8c\S bVS 6][Sa T]` O 1VO\UW\U @SUW]\ bSO[ Q]\RcQbSR O community workshop in Mount Prospect. Residents, community ZSORS`a DWZZOUS ]TĂ€QWOZa O\R ]bVS`a ^`SaS\bSR bVSW` dWSea ]\ V]caW\U W\ bVS DWZZOUS W\ US\S`OZ Oa eSZZ Oa O T]Qca O`SO( 3cQZWR /dS\cS PSbeSS\ @WdS` @]OR O\R 0c`\W\U 0caV :O\S BVS T]Qca O`SO eOa QV]aS\ Oa aSdS`OZ ]T bVS Z]ba W\ bVWa O`SO eS`S WRS\bWĂ€SR W\ bVS QO^OQWbg O\OZgaWa Oa c\RS`cbWZWhSR O\R ^]bS\bWOZ `SRSdSZ]^[S\b opportunities. The area currently consists of large lot single-family homes which front Euclid Avenue and some aging neighborhood commercial properties near the intersection of Euclid Avenue and River Road. This intersection also provides a gateway into the string of Cook County Forest Preserves and trails which run along the Des Plaines River. Attendees recommended providing recreation activities along Euclid Avenue that would connect with the parks along with mixeduse development on the northwest and southwest corners of the @WdS` @]OR O\R 3cQZWR /dS\cS W\bS`aSQbW]\ 7T bVS aW\UZS TO[WZg parcels redevelop in the future, stakeholders suggested replacement with a combination of housing types, including apartments and cottage housing.

Euclid Avenue looking west of River Road today

Source: Northwest Suburban Housing Collaborative.

These ideas were translated into the following images, showing how the area would be transformed with infrastructure W[^`]dS[S\ba O\R [WfSR caS PcWZRW\Ua BVS ^WQbc`Sa `SĂ SQb \]b only the community feedback from the meeting but also some ]T bVS Q]\QS^ba ]T bVWa `S^]`b W\QZcRW\U bVS PS\SĂ€ba ]T Q][^OQb \SWUVP]`V]]Ra 1][[c\Wbg TSSRPOQY Ob bVS [SSbW\U OZa] WRS\bWĂ€SR a]cbVS`\ ;]c\b >`]a^SQb Oa O\ O`SO ]T ]^^]`bc\Wbg O\R S[^VOaWhSR the importance of rehabilitating existing multi-developments and pursuing senior housing.

HOUSING POLICY PLAN: MOUNT PROSPECT

Euclid Avenue looking west of River Road with streetscaping

Source: Fregonese Associates.

Euclid Avenue looking west of River Road with private investment

Source: Fregonese Associates.

73

74

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

Recommended Strategies 6OdW\U QO`STcZZg O\OZghSR ;]c\b >`]a^SQbša Qc``S\b V]caW\U [O`YSb and future housing demand, a number of practical and achievable housing strategies will allow the Village to build upon its considerable assets while also addressing its future challenges. Maintaining housing supply 5WdS\ bVS ^`]XSQbSR UO^ PSbeSS\ bVS DWZZOUSša QO^OQWbg b] U`]e O\R bVS number of households who may want to move to Mount Prospect in the future, maintenance of the local housing stock will be paramount. Of particular concern are the number of aging multi-family properties which help provide 90 percent of the local rental stock. Continued careful monitoring and maintenance of these facilities can ensure that affordable rental housing options remain available for residents of all W\Q][S ZSdSZa SdS\ Oa RS[O\R `WaSa 7[^ZS[S\bW\U `SQ][[S\RObW]\a in this report focused on foreclosure tracking, rental licensing and rehabilitation will also help ensure the quality and viability of the current multi-family stock. Consider if and how to grow BVWa `S^]`b Ă€\Ra bVOb bVS DWZZOUS eWZZ Q]\bW\cS b] PS O RSaW`OPZS community, with prospective owners and renters interested in moving into Mount Prospect over the next 30 years. Yet, as a acPabO\bWOZZg PcWZb ]cb Q][[c\Wbg Wb QO\ PS RWTĂ€QcZb POZO\QW\U the public infrastructure and service delivery impacts with the distinctive local character when considering growth. Therefore, Mount Prospect should carefully consider if and how to grow over bVS \Sfb ! gSO`a aSSYW\U b] Ă€\R bVS `WUVb POZO\QS O\R caW\U bVWa report as a guide to what future households may demand. Demand is projected for everything from single-family homes to apartments for V]caSV]ZRa bV`]cUV]cb bVS W\Q][S a^SQb`c[ 7\ ^O`bWQcZO` ;]c\b Prospect should consider both owner- and renter-occupied housing, ^O`bWQcZO`Zg aS\W]` V]caW\U T]` V]caSV]ZRa SO`\W\U ZSaa bVO\ %# Implement changes in south Mount Prospect An unincorporated area in south Mount Prospect includes an O^O`b[S\b Q][^ZSf bVS C\WbSR /W`ZW\Sa B`OW\W\U 1S\bS` O\R O aS`WSa ]T a[OZZS` Q][[S`QWOZ W\Rcab`WOZ ^`]^S`bWSa OZ]\U /ZU]\_cW\ @]OR O\R 0caaS @]OR BVS DWZZOUS aV]cZR Sf^Z]`S O\\SfW\U a][S ]` OZZ ]T this land with the long term intention of using the existing business base and density of multi-family properties to create a mixed-use node of workforce housing, jobs, retail, and community services in bVS O`SO O`]c\R /ZU]\_cW\ @]OR AcQV STT]`ba Q]cZR ]TTS` U`]ebV opportunities for a substantially developed community. While pursuing this strategy, Mount Prospect should also work with /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba O\R @]ZZW\U ;SOR]ea ]\ Q]]`RW\ObSR ab`ObSUWSa T]` bVS 7 ' Q]``WR]` AcQV STT]`ba aV]cZR W\QZcRS( Â’ Ac^^]`b T]` b`O\a^]`bObW]\ W[^`]dS[S\ba ]\ bVS 7 ' Q]``WR]` bVOb provide greater regional access. Â’ 1]\aWRS`ObW]\ ]T `S\]dObW]\ `SRSdSZ]^[S\b ]^^]`bc\WbWSa bVOb PcWZR ]TT ]T bVSaS b`O\a^]`bObW]\ W[^`]dS[S\ba O\R S[^VOaWhS pedestrian and bicycle connections. Â’ 3f^Z]`ObW]\ ]T ]^^]`bc\WbWSa T]` aVO`SR a]QWOZ aS`dWQSa bVOb [SSb bVS needs of residents in all three communities, building off the success of the Community Connections Center.

Rehabilitation /a O 1][[c\Wbg 2SdSZ]^[S\b 0Z]QY 5`O\b 1205 S\bWbZS[S\b community, Mount Prospect has long operated a successful owneroccupied single-family rehabilitation program. Future rehabilitation efforts should continue to include owner-occupied senior housing to further aging in place. Foreclosures 7\ bVS aV]`b bS`[ ]\S ]T bVS DWZZOUSša []ab ^`SaaW\U V]caW\U WaacSa Wa bVS W[^OQb ]T T]`SQZ]ac`Sa 7b Wa `SQ][[S\RSR bVOb ;]c\b >`]a^SQb Sf^Z]`S be] Z]QOZ OdS\cSa b] ORR`Saa T]`SQZ]ac`Sa RSaWU\SR b] Ă€b within the regional efforts touched on previously in this report. Â’ 0cWZR `SZObW]\aVW^a b] `SRcQS bVS W[^OQb ]T T]`SQZ]ac`Sa Pg ( Â’ CaW\U bVS T]`SQZ]ac`S RObO ^`]dWRSR bV`]cUV >cPZWQ /Qb '$ &#$ O\R @SQ]`R 7\T]`[ObW]\ AS`dWQSa b] [O^ O\R []\Wb]` bVS Z]QObW]\ O\R QVO\US ]T T]`SQZ]ac`Sa eWbVW\ bVS DWZZOUS AcQV RObO QO\ be particularly useful for the Village as in targeting foreclosure prevention services and heightened code enforcement services, including rental monitoring. Â’ CbWZWhS T]`SQZ]ac`S b`OQYW\U b] RSdSZ]^ bO`USbSR T]`SQZ]ac`S prevention and disposition services through the Collaborative. Â’ 1`SObW\U O `SUWab`ObW]\ ^`]U`O[ T]` Q]\R][W\Wc[ O\R b]e\V]caS associations that collects contact information for the board and the number of rental units. Â’ 1][PW\W\U bVS W\T]`[ObW]\ T`][ P]bV ]T bVSaS STT]`ba b]( Â’ ;]\Wb]` bVS \c[PS` ]T T]`SQZ]ac`Sa eWbVW\ W\RWdWRcOZ PcWZRW\Ua Â’ CaS O\\cOZ `SUWab`ObW]\ `S_cW`S[S\ba b] RWaQcaa RObO b`S\Ra with associations and hear concerns and issues. Â’ 2SdSZ]^ PS\QV[O`Ya WRS\bWTgW\U eVS\ O ^`]^S`bg Wa Q]\aWRS`SR Âśb`]cPZSR¡ \c[PS` ^S`QS\bOUS ]T T]`SQZ]ac`Sa \c[PS` percentage of rentals, number of different rental owners, utility shutoffs). Â’ E]`Y eWbV bVS 1]ZZOP]`ObWdS b] RSdSZ]^ W\bS`dS\bW]\ ab`ObSUWSa for particularly “troubledâ€? properties. Â’ @S\bOZ :WQS\aW\U Â’ BVS DWZZOUSša Qc``S\b `S\bOZ ZWQS\aW\U ^`]U`O[ `S_cW`Sa bVS inspection of all building containing three or more units ]T eVWQV # ^S`QS\b O`S `S\bOZ c\Wba /ZZ ]bVS` `S\bOZ c\Wba are inspected in response to complaints. Many rented condominium units may not fall under the inspection `S_cW`S[S\b c\bWZ O PcWZRW\U PSQ][Sa [OX]`Wbg `S\bOZ 0OaSR ]\ RObO T`][ bVS E]]Rab]QY 7\abWbcbS !' ^S`QS\b ]T local foreclosure auctions were condominiums even though Q]\R][W\Wc[a ]\Zg [OYS c^ $ ^S`QS\b ]T bVS V]caW\U ab]QY Due to the number of foreclosures in condominium buildings, the Village should continue to monitor these foreclosures and their impacts on the condominium units. The Village should explore options to expand its rental licensing and inspection program to these units if property maintenance problems become more prevalent.

HOUSING POLICY PLAN: MOUNT PROSPECT

Â’ 5WdS\ bVS DWZZOUSša VWab]`WQ S[^VOaWa ]\ WRS\bWTgW\U c\Wba T]` inspection through resident complaints, Mount Prospect should continue to provide and expand an online mechanism for `SaWRS\ba b] Ă€ZS Q][^ZOW\ba ]` WRS\bWTg c\ZWQS\aSR `S\bOZ c\Wba Â’ BVS DWZZOUSša Qc``S\b `S\bOZ ZWQS\aS ^`]U`O[ `S_cW`Sa bVOb OZZ licensees attend the Crime Free housing course offered by the community. As other communities, currently or in the future, adopt similar programs, the Village should partner with 1]ZZOP]`ObWdS [S[PS`a ]\ Z]QOZ ^`]U`O[W\U AcQV O ^`]U`O[ could become more attractive to landlords if tied to incentives for participation. Â’ BVS DWZZOUS aV]cZR Q]\aWRS` UObVS`W\U bVS aO[S W\T]`[ObW]\ (ownership, management, unit type, etc.) as the other Collaborative communities so that data can be combined and O\OZghSR ]\ O `SUW]\OZ POaWa 0g Q]ZZSQbW\U bVS aO[S W\T]`[ObW]\ in the same format, Mount Prospect can work with its partners on common rental housing issues, including addressing problem landlords across a number of communities. Senior housing Mount Prospect already understands the need to provide opportunities for senior housing. The Village contains the 1S\bS\\WOZ /^O`b[S\ba '% c\Wba O\R 6c\bW\Ub]\ /^O`b[S\ba " units) for low-income seniors. The community continues to try and increase local senior housing options, including assisted living TOQWZWbWSa 5WdS\ bVS ^`]XSQbSR W\Q`SOaSa W\ bVS Z]QOZ aS\W]` ^]^cZObW]\ over the next 30 years, the Village should continue its commitment to providing a mix of senior housing options through the following STT]`ba( Â’ BVS ^`]^]aSR ' c\Wb 6]`Wh]\ AS\W]` :WdW\U TOQWZWbg e]cZR P]]ab bVS ac^^Zg ]T OTT]`ROPZS aS\W]` `S\bOZ ]^bW]\a 0SQOcaS bVWa development would occur in Mount Prospect, the Village should PcWZR O []\Wb]`W\U `SZObW]\aVW^ eWbV O\g ]`UO\WhObW]\a bVOb Tc\R bVWa ^`]XSQb b] c\RS`abO\R bVS Z]\U bS`[ Ă€\O\QWOZ VSOZbV ]T 6]`Wh]\ O\R caS bVOb W\T]`[ObW]\ Oa O [O`YSb QVSQY ]\ bVS RS[O\R T]` Tcbc`S OTT]`ROPZS aS\W]` ^`]XSQba W\ bVS `SUW]\ 0OaSR ]\ bVS outcome of this relationship building, the Village should identify opportunities for senior housing, including assisted living facilities, in locations suitable for redevelopment. Â’ /a O [ObbS` ]T ^]ZWQg aS\W]` RSdSZ]^[S\ba aV]cZR W\QZcRS infrastructure improvements that increase walkability to services O\R `SbOWZ 7\ bVS aV]`b bS`[ ;]c\b >`]a^SQb aV]cZR Sf^Z]`S such infrastructure improvements around existing senior developments.

75

Â’ EVWZS \Se V]caW\U ]^bW]\a O`S W[^]`bO\b [O\g aS\W]`a eWZZ eO\b to stay in their current home. Therefore, the Village should work with the Collaborative to develop “aging in placeâ€? information for `SaWRS\ba eVWQV e]cZR WRS\bWTg W[^]`bO\b []RWĂ€QObW]\a \SSRSR b] improve accessibility, eliminate barriers and create safer spaces. Â’ 0SQOcaS ]T Z]QOZ RSaW`S T]` O\ OaaWabSR ZWdW\U TOQWZWbg bVS DWZZOUS should identify factors which prevent its development and develop a strategy to overcome these obstacles. Sustainability and affordability CbWZWbg O\R [OW\bS\O\QS Q]aba O`S YSg Q][^]\S\ba ]T O\g household’s ability to afford a unit. With the number of people who want to live in Mount Prospect projected to grow in the future, S\S`Ug STĂ€QWS\Qg ]TTS`a O eOg T]` bVS DWZZOUS b] VSZ^ ]TTaSb a][S housing cost increases. Therefore, working with the Collaborative, bVS DWZZOUS aV]cZR WRS\bWTg Tc\RW\U a]c`QSa T]` S\S`Ug STĂ€QWS\Qg projects for both single-family and multi-family structures. Once Tc\RW\U Wa WRS\bWĂ€SR ;]c\b >`]a^SQb aV]cZR RSdSZ]^ ^`]U`O[a bVOb focus on rental structures, or design a means of making property ]e\S`a OeO`S ]T bVSaS ]^^]`bc\WbWSa 7\ O aW[WZO` dSW\ Z]QOZ bOfSa also impact housing affordability. Therefore, the Village should continue working with local taxing bodies to help keep taxes lower. 3f^Z]`S \Se Tc\RW\U a]c`QSa /a \]bSR ^`SdW]caZg 1205 Tc\RW\U VSZ^a ^Og T]` [O\g ]T bVS Village’s current housing efforts, such as the rehabilitation program. Additional funding sources would help speed implementation of this report. Therefore, the Village should explore new funding sources for local housing activities. One such option may be joining the Cook 1]c\bg 6=;3 1]\a]`bWc[ OZZ]eW\U bVS DWZZOUS OQQSaa b] TSRS`OZ funds for rehabilitation, new construction, and housing services for low- and moderate-income households.

Conclusion Mount Prospect faces the challenge of continuing to provide a diversity of housing options consistent with its local character in the face of limited capacity for growth. Projected future demand across all income levels and in a number of key demographics (seniors and young working-age households in particular) offers the chance to further the Village’s redevelopment efforts in downtown and southern Mount Prospect. Embracing a mix of recommendations designed to help mitigate foreclosures and maintain the current housing stock while furthering redevelopment in key locations will allow the community to make the most of these prospects.

76

Source: CMAP.

77

Housing Policy Plan: Palatine Project Summary One of a group of prosperous communities in northwestern Cook 1]c\bg >OZObW\S QO\ bOYS ^`WRS W\ Wba RWdS`aWÀSR \SWUVP]`V]]Ra good schools, excellent transportation resources, strong retail base, easy access to jobs both within and around the Village, and expanding downtown core.

Palatine continues to build on these assets by seeking development O\R `SRSdSZ]^[S\b ]^^]`bc\WbWSa AW\QS ''' >OZObW\S VOa T]QcaSR ]\ `SdWdW\U Wba R]e\b]e\ eWbV O [Wf ]T X]Pa V]caW\U O\R `SbOWZ 7\ bVS ^Oab RSQORS bVS O`SO ORRSR '%# `SaWRS\bWOZ c\Wba '! a_cO`S TSSb ]T Q][[S`QWOZ `SabOc`O\b a^OQS O\R a_cO`S TSSb ]T ^`]TSaaW]\OZ ]TÀQS a^OQS AW[WZO`Zg O`SOa OZ]\U bVS <]`bVeSab 6WUVeOg @O\R @]OR O\R 2c\RSS @]OR VOdS PSS\ bO`USbSR for redevelopment, creating a strong local retail base. A good relationship among local taxing districts allows Palatine to use tax W\Q`S[S\b À\O\QW\U B74 Oa O\ W\QS\bWdS BVS DWZZOUS ac^^ZS[S\ba bVSaS STT]`ba eWbV 1][[c\Wbg 2SdSZ]^[S\b 0Z]QY 5`O\b 1205 funds, pursuing a mixture of social service and infrastructure ^`]XSQba SOQV gSO` >OZObW\S¹a aWhS O\R Z]QObW]\ ^`]dWRSa OQQSaa b] O number of important transportation assets, including commuter rail and highway access.

Like its northwestern community neighbors, though, Palatine may face a number of challenges over the next 30 years. The growth in the Village’s multi-family housing stock includes a number of condominiums that have been particularly hard hit in the current housing market. The oldest areas contain aging buildings and infrastructure, most notably its multi-family housing stock. Though []abZg PcWZb ]cb Wb VOa bVS ^]bS\bWOZ ]T Sf^O\RW\U Pg O\]bVS` ' $ residents in the future and must decide whether to accommodate such growth. BVWa `S^]`b O\OZghSa >OZObW\S¹a SfWabW\U Q]\RWbW]\a O\R Tcbc`S \SSRa O\R W\QZcRSa `SQ][[S\RObW]\a T]QcaSR ]\( Â’ ; OYW\U bVS ^`SaS`dObW]\ ]T SfWabW\U [cZbW TO[WZg V]caW\U a key focus of future housing strategy. Â’ Continuing to redevelop downtown. Â’ 3 f^Z]`W\U W[^`]dS[S\ba W\QZcRW\U `SRSdSZ]^[S\b Ob bVS Rand-Hicks-Dundee triangle. Â’ Addressing condominium foreclosures through local and regional efforts. Â’ 1 `OTbW\U W\WbWObWdSa b] W\Q`SOaS bVS S\S`Ug STÀQWS\Qg ]T \Se O\R SfWabW\U V]caW\U

78

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

Existing Conditions Demographic and Economic Trends >OZObW\S Wa P]`RS`SR Pg /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba O\R @]ZZW\U ;SOR]ea b] bVS SOab) AQVOc[Pc`U b] bVS a]cbV) 7\dS`\Saa b] bVS eSab) O\R 2SS` >O`Y O\R :]\U 5`]dS b] bVS \]`bV >OZObW\Sยนa ^]^cZObW]\ W\Q`SOaSR b] $& ##% ]dS` bVS ZOab RSQORS BVS Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) produced ^]^cZObW]\ O\R V]caSV]ZR ^`]XSQbW]\a Oa ^O`b ]T 5= B= " the seven-county regionโ s comprehensive plan for sustainable prosperity for the next 30 years.20 BVS 5= B= " ร Uc`Sa W\RWQObS >OZObW\Sยนa ^]^cZObW]\ Q]cZR `WaS b] %& "# W\ " O\ W\Q`SOaS ]T ' $ residents.21 AcQV O\ W\Q`SOaS e]cZR `S_cW`S `]cUVZg " % ORRWbW]\OZ dwelling units, which, as will be noted later in this report, exceeds the existing housing capacity of the Village. While any decisions regarding if and how to grow are local, the projected demand is both PS\Sร QWOZ O\R RSb`W[S\bOZ RS[]\ab`ObW\U O ab`]\U V]caW\U [O`YSb Pcb OZa] [OYW\U Wb []`S RWTร QcZb b] [OW\bOW\ O POZO\QSR V]caW\U supply at all income levels.

A^SQWOZ W\QS\bWdS RWab`WQba ^ZOg O\ W[^]`bO\b `]ZS W\ bVS DWZZOUSยนa RSdSZ]^[S\b O\R `SRSdSZ]^[S\b STT]`ba >OZObW\Sยนa B74 RWab`WQba O`S Z]QObSR W\ be] O`SOa( R]e\b]e\ >OZObW\S O\R bVS @O\R O\R 2c\RSS Q]``WR]` BVS R]e\b]e\ B74 RWab`WQb eOa Q`SObSR W\ ''' a^c``W\U the redevelopment of downtown Palatine over the last decade. A b]bOZ ]T bV`SS B74 RWab`WQba Q]dS` Q][[S`QWOZ ^`]^S`bWSa OZ]\U @O\R @]OR O\R 2c\RSS @]OR W\ bVS \]`bVSOabS`\ ^O`b ]T bVS DWZZOUS 7\ bVS 8]W\b 0]O`R ]T @SdWSe O^^`]dSR O \Se B74 RWab`WQb O`]c\R the intersection of Rand Road and Lake Cook Road. The Village also Q`SObSR O BO`USbSR 2SdSZ]^[S\b H]\S OZ]\U bVS <]`bVeSab 6WUVeOg W\ % BVWa O`SO ^`]dWRSa O # ^S`QS\b `SRcQbW]\ W\ OZZ `SdWSe permit, and inspection fees for any project with an estimated value ]T # ]` U`SObS` Palatine jobs, 2006-10 2006 2010 EDUCATIONAL SERVICES

Population and change in population, 2000 and 2010 Population, 2000 (Census)

65,479

Population, 2010 (Census)

68,557

Change, 2000-10

+3,078

Change as %, 2000-10 GO TO 2040 Projection, 2040

RETAIL TRADE

TRANSPORTATION AND WAREHOUSING

+4.7 78,145

HEALTH CARE AND SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Source: U.S. Census and CMAP GO TO 2040 projections.

With relatively similar employment levels across a number of sectors, Palatineโ s diverse economy has remained a strength despite the economic downturn. The number of jobs in the Village decreased Pg ZSaa bVO\ ]\S ^S`QS\b PSbeSS\ $ O\R BVS ZO`USab aW\UZS W\Rcab`g Wa SRcQObW]\OZ aS`dWQSa [OYW\U c^ " ^S`QS\b ]T Z]QOZ S[^Z]g[S\b W\ BVS ^`SaS\QS ]T 6O`^S` 1]ZZSUS R`WdSa bVWa aSQb]` @Sร SQbW\U bVS RWdS`aWbg ]T X]Pa ]bVS` [OX]` Z]QOZ S[^Z]gS`a W\QZcRS AQV\SWRS` 3ZSQb`WQ EOZ ;O`b ESPS` AbS^VS\ C A >]abOZ AS`dWQS O\R B]e\aVW^ 6WUV AQV]]Z 2Wab`WQb

MANUFACTURING

ACCOMMODATION AND FOOD SERVICES

PROFESSIONAL, SCIENTIFIC, AND TECHNICAL SERVICES

FINANCE AND INSURANCE

ADMINISTRATION AND SUPPORT, WASTE MANAGEMENT

CONSTRUCTION 0%

5%

10%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, LED Data, On-the-Map.

20 See http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/2040. 21 See the Appendix for more information about these projections.

15%

20%

25%

HOUSING POLICY PLAN: PALATINE

79

Where Do Palatine’s Workers Live? Thirteen percent of workers in Palatine live in the community, the VWUVSab ^S`QS\bOUS O[]\U bVS ÀdS 1]ZZOP]`ObWdS b]e\a EVWZS eight percent of workers come from Chicago, Palatine is one of only two Collaborative members for which more residents work in the

[c\WQW^OZWbg bVO\ ^S]^ZS T`][ 1VWQOU] 5S]U`O^VWQOZZg e]`YS`a come from all directions, with the fewest coming from the northeast; bVWa ZWYSZg `SĂ SQba bVS ^`SaS\QS ]T 7 ' O\R 7ZZW\]Wa @]cbS #!

Where do Palatine’s workers live, 2010?

Where do Palatine’s workers live? Job counts by distance/direction in 2010, all workers

13% N 13%

PALATINE

8%

CHICAGO

4%

ARLINGTON HEIGHTS

31%

8%

NW

NE 5,000

4%

4%

HOFFMAN ESTATES

4%

SCHAUMBURG

3%

ROLLING MEADOWS

3,000 1,000

4% W

21%

REMAINDER OF COOK COUNTY

12%

LAKE COUNTY

31%

ALL OTHER LOCATIONS

12%

E

4% 3%

SW

SE

21% S

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, LED Data, On-the-Map.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, LED Data, On-the-Map.

80

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

Where Do Palatine’s Residents Work? Like all other Collaborative communities and many other municipalities throughout the region, the largest single destination for employed Palatine residents is Chicago. The second largest location is Palatine, with nine percent of employed residents e]`YW\U W\ bVS Q][[c\Wbg O ÀUc`S ]\ ^O` eWbV bVS ^O`b\S`

municipalities. While a number of nearby communities are also YSg Q][[cbW\U Z]QObW]\a /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba AQVOc[Pc`U SbQ residents travel to jobs throughout the region. Due to Metra and highway access, many residents work south and east of the Village.

Where do Palatine’s residents work, 2010?

Where do Palatine’s residents work? Job counts by distance/direction in 2010, all workers

15% 19%

13%

N

15%

CHICAGO

9%

PALATINE

8%

ARLINGTON HEIGHTS

6%

SCHAUMBURG

3%

ROLLING MEADOWS

3%

ELK GROVE VILLAGE

NW

24%

REMAINDER OF COOK COUNTY

13%

LAKE COUNTY

19%

ALL OTHER LOCATIONS

24%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, LED Data, On-the-Map.

NE

9%

12,000

8%

7,200 2,400

W

E

6% 3% 3%

SW

SE

S

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, LED Data, On-the-Map.

HOUSING POLICY PLAN: PALATINE

81

Current Housing Analysis While single-family homes are the most numerous type of housing in Palatine, multi-family units and townhomes ensure a diverse local V]caW\U ab]QY AW\UZS TO[WZg V][Sa [OYS c^ "! ^S`QS\b ]T c\Wba Townhomes make up 17 percent of homes, the largest percentage in the Collaborative. The community contains almost equal numbers of single-family and multi-family units. The Village’s multi-family ]^bW]\a `O\US T`][ Rc^ZSfSa b] # c\Wb PcWZRW\Ua BVSaS [cZbW family structures contain 87 percent of Palatine’s rental units. Approximately 90 percent of rental households have incomes of ZSaa bVO\ 7\ bVS ^Oab RSQORS bVS \c[PS` ]T ]QQc^WSR O^O`b[S\ba RSQ`SOaSR Pg OZ[]ab $ RSa^WbS O\ ]dS`OZZ W\Q`SOaS W\ Palatine’s housing stock.

What is “Affordable Housing?� What constitutes affordable housing varies from household to household, as the measure is relative. For this report, the following U.S. Census guidelines were used: š “Affordable housing� is housing that costs no more than 30 percent of household income (including utilities, insurance, and taxes). š “Unaffordable housing� is housing that costs between 30 percent and 50 percent of household income.

Consistent with regional trends, the number of both owners and š “Severely unaffordable housingâ€? is housing that costs more renters paying more than 30 percent of their incomes on housing than 50 percent of household income. increased since 2000. For owners, the number of such households U`Se T`][ ^S`QS\b b] !# ^S`QS\b 4]` `S\bS`a bVS \c[PS` ac`USR T`][ !" ^S`QS\b b] "$ ^S`QS\b /^^`]fW[ObSZg %# ^S`QS\b ]T Palatine housing type by tenure unaffordable and severely unaffordable owner households earn less bVO\ %# O\R %# ^S`QS\b ]T `S\bS`a W\ bV]aS U`]c^W\Ua SO`\ ZSaa OWNER-OCCUPIED RENTER-OCCUPIED bVO\ !# BVS W\Q`SOaW\U \c[PS` ]T Q]ab Pc`RS\SR ]e\S`a O\R 555 renters in Palatine over the last decade is consistent with national 10,530 6,088 b`S\Ra /QQ]`RW\U b] O\OZgaWa Pg 6O`dO`R C\WdS`aWbg ÂśbVS `SQSaaW]\ ­ 10,000 did little to reduce housing outlays for many Americans,â€? due in part to declining incomes, slow employment growth, and more stringent credit requirements.22 8,000

6,000

386 4,000

4,381 3,984

2,000

0

SINGLE FAMILY TOWNHOME

Source: American Community Survey 2006-10.

22 Joint Center for Housing Studies. (June, 2012). State of the Nation’s Housing 2012. Harvard University.

MULTIFAMILY

0 15 OTHER

82

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

Palatine tenure by units in structure

Palatine tenure by household income, in number of occupied units

OWNER-OCCUPIED

OWNER-OCCUPIED

RENTER-OCCUPIED

RENTER-OCCUPIED

1 (DETACHED)

5,000 1 (ATTACHED) 2 UNITS

4,000 3 OR 4 UNITS 5 TO 9 UNITS

3,000

10 TO 19 UNITS 20 TO 49 UNITS

2,000

50 OR MORE UNITS

1,000

MOBILE HOME BOAT, RV, VAN, ETC. 0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

Source: American Community Survey 2006-10.

0

<15k

<35k

<50k

Source: American Community Survey 2006-10.

Palatine rental and owner housing affordability OWNER HOUSING

12%

RENTAL HOUSING

21%

22% 54% 66%

AFFORDABLE

UNAFFORDABLE

Source: American Community Survey 2006-10.

25%

SEVERELY UNAFFORDABLE

<75k

<100k

<150k

150k+

HOUSING POLICY PLAN: PALATINE

83

Current Ownership Housing

Current Rental Housing

The graph below indicates that there are two areas of owneroccupied homes in the middle of the market representing two RWabW\Qb V]caSV]ZR QObSU]`WSa C\Wba T]` V]caSV]ZRa SO`\W\U PSbeSS\ # O\R !# Q][S T`][ V][Sa eWbV]cb []`bUOUSa /^^`]fW[ObSZg #$ ^S`QS\b ]T ]e\S`a eWbV]cb O []`bUOUS O`S ]dS` $# C\Wba T]` V]caSV]ZRa SO`\W\U PSbeSS\ !# O\R Q][S T`][ V][Sa eWbV []`bUOUSa /Z[]ab %# ^S`QS\b ]T ]e\S`a eWbV O []`bUOUS O`S g]c\US` bVO\ ## 5O^a W\ ac^^Zg SfWab Ob bVS Z]eSab O\R VWUVSab W\Q][S `O\USa 0SQOcaS ]T bVSaS ac^^Zg aV]`bTOZZa [O\g low-income households “move up� by paying more for housing than is affordable, while higher income groups “move down� by spending less than 30 percent of their income on housing.

5WdS\ bVS U`]eW\U \c[PS` ]T Q]ab Pc`RS\SR `S\bS`a bVS TOQb bVOb Palatine’s rental market contains a large number of apartments occupied by middle-income households with shortfalls among low- and high-income households is not surprising. Those renters [OYW\U ZSaa bVO\ !# `S^`SaS\b bVS U`]eW\U \c[PS` ]T TO[WZWSa ^OgW\U []`S bVO\ ! ^S`QS\b ]T bVSW` W\Q][S b] `S\b O c\Wb C^^S` income households may choose to move down, saving money eVWZS ]QQc^gW\U O ZSaa Q]abZg c\Wb /QQ]`RW\U b] $ /[S`WQO\ 1][[c\Wbg Ac`dSg /1A RObO "% ^S`QS\b ]T `S\bS`a W\ >OZObW\S O`S PSbeSS\ !# O\R $" AW[WZO`Zg "% ^S`QS\b ]T Q]ab Pc`RS\SR `S\bS`a O`S PSbeSS\ !# O\R $" BeSZdS ^S`QS\b ]T Q]ab Pc`RS\SR `S\bS`a O`S aS\W]` QWbWhS\a SdS\ bV]cUV bVSg [OYS c^ ]\Zg \W\S ^S`QS\b ]T bVS renter population.

Palatine comparison of owner household incomes with occupied units affordable at each income level 2010

Palatine comparison of rental household incomes with occupied units affordable at each income level 2010 ACTUAL HOUSEHOLDS AT INCOME LEVEL 2010

ACTUAL HOUSEHOLDS AT INCOME LEVEL 2010

ESTIMATED OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS AFFORDABLE AT INCOME LEVEL 2010 3,500

ESTIMATED OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS AFFORDABLE AT INCOME LEVEL (WITHOUT MORTGAGE) 2010 ESTIMATED OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS AFFORDABLE AT INCOME LEVEL (WITH MORTGAGE) 2010 6,000

3,000

5,000

2,500

4,000

2,000

3,000

1,500

2,000

1,000

1,000

500

0

<$15

<$35

<$50

<$75

<$100

<$150

$150+

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese Envision Tomorrow Balanced Housing Model using ACS 2006-10 inputs.

0

<$15

<$35

<$50

<$75

<$100

<$150

$150+

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese Envision Tomorrow Balanced Housing Model using ACS 2006-10 inputs.

84

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

Today’s Market Segments and Market Preferences B]]Za RSdSZ]^SR Pg O ZSORW\U eSZZ Y\]e\ [O`YSb `SaSO`QV Ă€`[ 3\dW`]\[S\bOZ AgabS[a @SaSO`QV 7\abWbcbS 3A@7 eS`S caSR b] enrich the understanding of the housing types preferred by families bVOb ZWdS W\ >OZObW\S b]ROg BVS POaWQ c\Wb ]T bVS 3A@7 1][[c\Wbg BO^Sab`g agabS[ Wa bVS \SWUVP]`V]]R POaSR ]\ C A 1S\aca PZ]QY U`]c^a 3A@7 VOa QZOaaWĂ€SR SdS`g \SWUVP]`V]]R W\ bVS Q]c\b`g Oa ]\S ]T $# [O`YSb aSU[S\ba BVSaS aSU[S\ba O`S bVS\ Q][PW\SR W\b] ]\S ]T :WTS;]RS U`]c^a ASU[S\ba O\R U`]c^a O`S OaaWU\SR b] \SWUVP]`V]]Ra Pg a]`bW\U []`S bVO\ $ Obb`WPcbSa W\QZcRW\U W\Q][S employment, home value, housing type, education, household composition, age, and other key determinants of consumer behavior. <SWUVP]`V]]Ra eWbV bVS []ab aW[WZO` QVO`OQbS`WabWQa O`S Q][PW\SR while neighborhoods showing divergent characteristics are separated. 4WdS U`]c^a W\b] eVWQV '$ ^S`QS\b ]T >OZObW\Sša V]caSV]ZRa TOZZ eS`S WRS\bWĂ€SR( C^aQOZS /dS\cSa 6WUV A]QWSbg 6WUV 6]^Sa AS\W]` AbgZSa O\R A]Z] /Qba

BVS ZO`USab acQV U`]c^ ÂśC^aQOZS /dS\cSa ¡ bS\R b] PS OTĂ cS\b households that prefer a variety of housing types and invest in their V][Sa bV`]cUV `S[]RSZW\U ]` ZO\RaQO^W\U Âś6WUV A]QWSbg¡ O`S OZa] OTĂ cS\b V]caSV]ZRa RWabW\UcWaVSR Pg bVSW` W\bS`Sab W\ aW\UZS TO[WZg V][Sa Âś6WUV 6]^Sa¡ `S^`SaS\b g]c\U []PWZS Q]ZZSUS SRcQObSR households looking for both housing and work opportunities. ;]ab ZWdS W\ aW\UZS TO[WZg V][Sa ]` [cZbW c\Wb PcWZRW\Ua ÂśAS\W]` AbgZSa¡ `SaWRS\ba VOdS V]caW\U ^`STS`S\QSa Oa RWdS`aS Oa bVSW` circumstances, residing in single-family homes, retirement homes, ]` VWUV `WaSa 4W\OZZg ÂśA]Z] /Qba¡ O`S US\S`OZZg g]c\U aW\UZS ]` roommate households who prefer a mobile, urban lifestyle and denser housing options. EVOb R]Sa bVWa [SO\ T]` bVS Tcbc`S V]caW\U \SSRa ]T >OZObW\S- 4W`ab it means that more than 70 percent of current residents have at least a moderate propensity to live in a compact neighborhood (e.g. containing a range of housing types that encourage walking to retail stores, neighborhood amenities, other homes, and transit lines). ASQ]\RZg bVS U`]c^a VSZ^ Q]\Ă€`[ O\R RSS^S\ W\T]`[ObW]\ UZSO\SR T`][ C A 1S\aca RObO 7\ ^O`bWQcZO` OZZ Ă€dS aSU[S\ba VWUVZWUVb bVS broad demand that supports the Village’s diverse selection of singleTO[WZg b]e\V][S O\R [cZbW TO[WZg RSdSZ]^[S\ba 5`]c^a T`][ across the income spectrum seek higher density unit types, though bVS Z]QOZ aW\UZS TO[WZg ]e\S` [O`YSb Wa R`WdS\ ^`W[O`WZg Pg bVS 6WUV A]QWSbg O\R C^aQOZS /dS\cSa aSU[S\ba 4W\OZZg eVWZS \]b O\ SfOQb guide to the future, these groups can also be useful when planning for future housing needs, as will be explored in subsequent sections.

Palatine Lifemode groups LIFEMODE GROUPS Upscale Avenues

INCOME

FAMILY TYPE

AVERAGE AGE

% OF TOTAL

HOUSING TYPES

TENURE

Middle-Upper

Middle-Upper

37.1

47.7%

Single-family, townhome, multi-unit

Own

High Society

Upper

Upper

42.2

24.9%

Single family

Own

High Hopes

Middle

Middle

31.1

13.6%

Multi-unit and townhome

Rent

Senior Styles

Middle

Middle

50.3

6.0%

Multi-unit and single family

Own/rent

Middle-Upper

Middle-Upper

34.4

4.0%

Multi-unit and single family

Rent/own

Solo Acts

Source: CMAP analysis of ESRI Community Tapestry Segments.

HOUSING POLICY PLAN: PALATINE

85

Projecting Future Housing Needs 6]caW\U ^ZO\\W\U \SSRa b] bOYS W\b] OQQ]c\b bV]aS eV] [WUVb ZWdS in the community in the future. After developing an understanding of the current housing market in Palatine, the following sections look at possible future housing demand in the Village. Census data, CMAP’s local population and household projections for the year " O\R bVS 3A@7 BO^Sab`g [O`YSb aSU[S\b RObO OZZ]e T]` a][S realistic estimates of who will want to live in Palatine over the next 30 years. Further, the types of housing necessary to meet the needs of both current and future residents can be determined.

Palatine 2010 households and housing stock compared with 2040 owner demand OCCUPIED HOUSING STOCK AFFORDABLE AT 30% OF INCOME (2010) DEMAND AT INCOME LEVEL (2010) PROJECTED DEMAND AT INCOME LEVEL (2040) 6,000

5,000

Future Ownership Needs With growth, the number of future owner households could increase at all income levels. The present supply of units affordable b] [WRRZS W\Q][S V]caSV]ZRa # b] e]cZR []`S bVO\ Q]dS` O\g Tcbc`S U`]ebV AV]`bTOZZa W\ ac^^Zg Q]cZR SfWab Ob OZZ other income levels. While upper income households may choose to move down, spending less on housing costs, lower income owner households must move up. Without more units, the increase in V]caSV]ZRa SO`\W\U ZSaa bVO\ !# Q]cZR P]]ab bVS \c[PS` ]T cost-burdened owners. >`]a^SQbWdS ]e\S`a W\ " `S[OW\ `SZObWdSZg aW[WZO` Pg W\Q][S U`]c^ eWbV bV`SS OUS U`]c^a R`WdW\U bVS ]e\S` [O`YSb AS\W]`a could play a larger role in the owner market for households earning ZSaa bVO\ !# W\ " 4]` OZZ ]bVS` W\Q][S ZSdSZa OUS U`]c^a # b] "" O\R "# b] $" O`S bVS Q]`S ]T bVS ]e\S` [O`YSb BVWa P`SOY]cb Q]``Sa^]\Ra QZ]aSZg eWbV bVS C^aQOZS /dS\cSa 6WUV A]QWSbg O\R AS\W]` AbgZSa U`]c^a RWaQcaaSR ^`SdW]caZg EVWZS bVS [O`YSb T]` single-family homes at the upper end of the income spectrum will remain strong, the growth of senior residents creates a need to consider ways to either offer additional housing options, which may be more attractive for senior owners, or to consider ways to help seniors age in place.

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

<$15

<$35

<$50

<$75

<$100

<$150

$150+

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese Envision Tomorrow Balanced Housing Model using ACS 2006-10 and CMAP GO TO 2040 household forecast inputs.

Palatine projected owner demand by age of household <25

25-44

45-64

65+

4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 <15k

<35k

<50k

<75k

<100k

<150k

150k+

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese Envision Tomorrow Balanced Housing Model using ACS 2006-10 and CMAP GO TO 2040 household forecast inputs.

86

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

Future Rental Needs

Palatine 2010 households and housing stock compared with 2040 rental demand

While it is projected that the number of renters in Palatine could W\Q`SOaS PSbeSS\ O\R " bVS PcZY ]T bVOb U`]ebV e]cZR ]QQc` O[]\U V]caSV]ZRa SO`\W\U ZSaa bVO\ !# 1c``S\b middle-income rental units would more than cover these estimated W\Q`SOaSa 5WdS\ bVS aVSS` \c[PS` ]T c\Wba OTT]`ROPZS b] [WRRZS income households, programs that focus on helping low-income renters afford these units would reduce the chances that they become cost-burdened. Future renters could come from across the age spectrum. EVWZS VOZT ]T OZZ `S\bS`a W\ " e]cZR PS PSbeSS\ bVS OUSa ]T # O\R "" aS\W]`a O`S OZa] ^`]XSQbSR b] ^ZOg O aWU\WÀQO\b `]ZS W\ bVS future rental market, particularly for households making less than !# BVS ^`]XSQbSR & ^S`QS\b ]T `S\bS`a bVOb e]cZR PS ]dS` $# W\ " Wa []`S bVO\ b`W^ZS bVS Qc``S\b ^S`QS\bOUS BVS Tcbc`S market structure underlines the importance of both maintaining a rental stock that is attractive to younger renters while also seeking ]cb eOga b] OQQ][[]RObS ORRWbW]\OZ aS\W]` `S\bS`a 0OaSR ]\ bVS Qc``S\b [O`YSb aSU[S\ba bVS AS\W]` AbgZSa 6WUV 6]^Sa O\R A]Z] Acts groups will continue to be the important local market factors.

OCCUPIED HOUSING STOCK AFFORDABLE AT 30% OF INCOME (2010) DEMAND AT INCOME LEVEL (2010) PROJECTED DEMAND AT INCOME LEVEL (2040) 3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

<$15

<$35

<$50

<$75

<$100

<$150

$150+

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese Envision Tomorrow Balanced Housing Model using ACS 2006-10 and CMAP GO TO 2040 household forecast inputs.

Palatine projected renter demand by age of household <25

25-44

45-64

65+

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0 <15k

<35k

<50k

<75k

<100k

<150k

150k+

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese Envision Tomorrow Balanced Housing Model using ACS 2006-10 and CMAP GO TO 2040 household forecast inputs.

HOUSING POLICY PLAN: PALATINE

87

Possible future owners and renters demand both single-family and multi-family units.

Source: CMAP.

Source: CMAP.

Housing Demand by Type of Unit

Palatine future balanced housing profile

When combining projections for future owners and renters, there is one possible picture of Palatine’s demand for additional housing c\Wba Pg bg^S W\ " EVOb S[S`USa Wa O ¶POZO\QSR V]caW\U· ^`]ÀZS eWbV RS[O\R T]` OP]cb $! ORRWbW]\OZ aW\UZS TO[WZg V][Sa &%# b]e\V][Sa O\R ## [cZbW TO[WZg V][Sa PSbeSS\ \]e O\R " BVSaS " $&' ORRWbW]\OZ c\Wba e]cZR V]caS O^^`]fW[ObSZg ' $ ^S]^ZS /a \]bSR ^`SdW]caZg bVSaS ÀUc`Sa O`S POaSR ]\ ^`]XSQbW]\a) real growth may be more or less than estimated. While the ultimate choice regarding if and how to grow is a local one, the decision will VOdS O aWU\WÀQO\b W[^OQb ]\ bVS DWZZOUS¹a Z]\U bS`[ V]caW\U \SSRa

INCREMENTAL UNITS (INCLUDES NEW UNITS, REHABILITATED VACANT UNITS AND VACANCIES, 2010-2040) OCCUPIED HOUSING SUPPLY PALATINE, 2010 2,551

12,000

10,000

8,000

10,469

794 7,760

6,000 875 469

4,000

4,370

3,362

2,000

0 LARGE LOT SF

SMALL LOT SF

TOWNHOME

MULTIFAMILY

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese Envision Tomorrow Balanced Housing Model using ACS 2006-10 and CMAP GO TO 2040 household forecast inputs.

88

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

Capacity for Growth Estimated future population and household growth is only onehalf of the equation in considering future housing needs. As a community with numerous assets, it is understandable why many ^S]^ZS eO\b b] ZWdS W\ >OZObW\S \]e O\R W\ bVS Tcbc`S 0cb b] ^ZO\ for future households and housing, it is also important to look at capacity, particularly for a built-out community. To understand the Village’s ability to accommodate projected growth, two key sources ]T QO^OQWbg eS`S `SdWSeSR( RSdSZ]^[S\b `SRSdSZ]^[S\b O\R vacancy.23

Palatine maximum capacity by unit type

43%

Development/Redevelopment Analysis

43%

The extent to which Palatine could grow based on current land caS `SUcZObW]\a eOa O\OZghSR 7\ `SdWSeW\U 1]]Y 1]c\bg /aaSaa]` RObO dOQO\b O\R `SRSdSZ]^OPZS ^O`QSZa eS`S WRS\bWÀSR eVS`S the land value is greater than the improvement value). Then, the Q][[c\Wbg¹a Qc``S\b h]\W\U O\R RSdSZ]^[S\b abO\RO`Ra eS`S O^^ZWSR b] ÀUc`S ]cb V]e [O\g c\Wba Q]cZR PS PcWZb W\ >OZObW\S 0OaSR ]\ bVOb O\OZgaWa Wb Wa SabW[ObSR >OZObW\S VOa bVS QO^OQWbg T]` "'# \Se ReSZZW\U 4WTbg be] ^S`QS\b ]T \Se c\Wba Q]cZR PS [cZbW TO[WZg eVWZS "! ^S`QS\b Q]cZR PS aW\UZS TO[WZg V][Sa BVWa QO^OQWbg would allow the Village to accommodate about 32 percent of the projected population growth, or 3,000 new residents.

LARGE LOT

5%

TOWNHOME

52%

MULTIFAMILY

5%

52% Source: CMAP analysis of Palatine zoning ordinance, Cook County assessor data.

Maximum capacity by unit type TYPE

UNITS

Large Lot SF (>8,000 s.f.)

645

Small Lot SF (<8,000 s.f.)

-

Townhome

77

Multi-family

773

Mobile Home/Other TOTAL Source: CMAP analysis of Palatine zoning ordinance, Cook County assessor data.

23 See the Appendix for more information about the methodology.

1,495

HOUSING POLICY PLAN: PALATINE

Both new housing and vacant units can provide room for growth.

Vacancy Analysis 0SQOcaS ]T bVS Qc``S\b V]caW\U [O`YSb [O\g V][Sa \]e dOQO\b may not be so in the future, allowing people to move into Palatine eWbV]cb PcWZRW\U \Se c\Wba /QQ]`RW\U b] $ /1A SabW[ObSa >OZObW\S VOa O^^`]fW[ObSZg &" dOQO\b V]caW\U c\Wba OP]cb % ^S`QS\b ]T OZZ V][Sa W\ bVS DWZZOUS <]`[OZ Z]\U bS`[ dOQO\Qg `ObSa T]` O ab`]\U Q][[c\Wbg O`S % " ^S`QS\b T]` `S\bOZ c\Wba O\R # percent for owner units. " 7\ O VSOZbVg [O`YSb bVS DWZZOUS e]cZR ]\Zg VOdS O^^`]fW[ObSZg !& dOQO\b c\Wba BVS`ST]`S & " Qc``S\bZg vacant units could be occupied in the future as Palatine grows O\R bVS [O`YSb abOPWZWhSa BVWa QO^OQWbg e]cZR OZZ]e bVS DWZZOUS b] accommodate about 17 percent of the projected growth, or about $ \Se `SaWRS\ba

Source: CMAP.

Palatine breakdown of current vacant units VACANT UNITS IN HEALTHY MARKET CURRENT VACANT UNITS TO BE OCCUPIED 2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0 Source: CMAP analysis of ACS 2006-10. 24 See ^jjf1&&mmm%`Z^i%^XhlXh[%\[k&i_j\i&`Z^i%^XhlXh[%\[k&Ã’b\i&m'.$.%f[].

89

90

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

Future Housing Conclusions BOYW\U W\b] OQQ]c\b QO^OQWbg OdOWZOPZS c\RS` RSdSZ]^[S\b `SRSdSZ]^[S\b O\R dOQO\Qg >OZObW\S QO\ OQQ][[]RObS "' ^S`QS\b ]T bVS ^`]XSQbSR V]caW\U c\Wba bVOb Q]cZR PS ORRSR Pg " ]` OP]cb " $ ORRWbW]\OZ `SaWRS\ba BVS `S[OW\W\U O^^`]fW[ObSZg # Tcbc`S `SaWRS\ba `S^`SaS\b c\[Sb RS[O\R ^S]^ZS eV] eO\b to live in Palatine but cannot due to a lack of available units. Many of these people would be looking for small lot single family homes, townhomes and multi-family units, as the Village’s current codes e]cZR OQQ][[]RObS U`]ebV T]` ZO`US Z]b aW\UZS TO[WZg c\Wba 0OaSR ]\ bVSaS ÀUc`Sa bVS QV]WQS ]T WT O\R V]e b] U`]e Wa O Q`WbWQOZ ]\S

Palatine demand vs. vacancy and capacity by housing type, units 2010-40

7T bVS DWZZOUS QV]]aSa b] [OW\bOW\ Wba Qc``S\b ^]^cZObW]\ ZSdSZ bVS demand to live in Palatine over the next 30 years will increase V]caW\U Q]aba T]` P]bV `S\bS`a O\R ]e\S`a AcQV `WaW\U Q]aba QO\ increase the number of households paying more than 30 percent of their income for housing (as occurred over the past decade) and [OYS Wb RWTÀQcZb b] [OW\bOW\ O RWdS`aS V]caW\U ab]QY OTT]`ROPZS b] O wide range of incomes. Without growth, maintenance of the Village’s current housing stock becomes paramount.

2,250

7T bVS DWZZOUS QV]]aSa b] U`]e Wb [cab RSbS`[W\S bVS PSab Z]QObW]\a for growth given the projected types of housing future residents may RS[O\R /a O PcWZb ]cb Q][[c\Wbg À\RW\U acQV Z]QObW]\a QO\ PS RWTÀQcZb 1VO\UW\U `SUcZObW]\a b] OQQ][[]RObS acQV U`]ebV [cab be considered carefully. Regardless of which route the Village chooses, policy makers are encouraged to use these statistics as a guide, focusing on the relative number of single family, multi-family, and townhome units that b]USbVS` `Sà SQb O POZO\QSR V]caW\U [O`YSb

DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY (2010) VACANT UNITS (2010) ESTIMATED INCREASE IN DEMAND FOR UNITS (2040) 2,500

2,000 1,750 1,500

1,250 1,000 750 500 250 0 LARGE LOT SF

SMALL LOT SF

TOWNHOME

MULTIFAMILY

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese Envision Tomorrow Balanced Housing Model, Cook County Property Assessor data, and U.S. Census Bureau inputs.

Downtown Palatine offers an opportunity for growth. Source: Village of Palatine.

91

HOUSING POLICY PLAN: PALATINE

Sustainability 7\ % bVS 1S\bS` T]` <SWUVP]`V]]R BSQV\]Z]Ug 1<B ^`]RcQSR O\ S\S`Ug O\R S[WaaW]\a ^`]ÀZS T]` >OZObW\S Oa ^O`b ]T bVS ;c\WQW^OZ 3\S`Ug >`]ÀZS >`]XSQb /QQ]`RW\U b] bVS `S^]`b bVS DWZZOUS S[WbbSR an estimated 13.27 metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide (CO2e) per capita, approximately 11 percent lower than the Cook County S[WaaW]\a ^S` QO^WbO " &$ ;B 1= S EWbV ' ^S`QS\b ]T Z]QOZ emissions coming from electricity, natural gas, and transportation, O\g T]`eO`R bVW\YW\U V]caW\U ^ZO\ aV]cZR O\OZghS bVSaS O`SOa The adjacent table highlights residential natural gas and energy usage in the Village and Cook County in 2007. At that time, the average Palatine household consumed more electricity, but less gas, and overall less total energy than the average Cook County household. One key part of local energy usage is the home heating a]c`QS 0OaSR ]\ RObO T`][ bVS $ /1A \Obc`OZ UOa Wa bVS dominant local home heating source, used by 83 percent of households. Electricity provides heat for a larger percentage of `S\bS`a bVO\ ]e\S`a !$ ^S`QS\b da & ^S`QS\b /QQ]`RW\U b] % 1<B RObO >OZObW\S OdS`OUSR O VWUVS` \c[PS` of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per household than Cook County & #! dS`aca " %" `Sa^SQbWdSZg 0SQOcaS ]T bVS RWTTS`S\QS W\ [WZSOUS >OZObW\S `SaWRS\ba ^Og O^^`]fW[ObSZg #& []`S ^S` []\bV in transportation costs than the average county household based on bVS Qc``S\b 7\bS`\OZ @SdS\cS AS`dWQS 7@A [WZSOUS `SW[Pc`aS[S\b `ObS @SaSO`QV Pg @SWR 3eW\U O\R ]bVS`a W\ bVS 8]c`\OZ ]T C`PO\ Planning and Development has shown that the biggest factor in reRcQW\U D;B Wa T`][ œ^cbbW\U ]TÀQSa aV]^a `SabOc`O\ba `SaWRS\QSa and other codependent activities in close proximity to each other.� # As discussed previously, the gap between projected housing demand and current capacity could put upward pressure on housing prices for owners and renters over the next 30 years. That aOWR S\S`Ug STÀQWS\Qg O\R acabOW\OPWZWbg STT]`ba QO\ VSZ^ [WbWUObS rising housing costs. The Village’s municipal aggregation program can help some cost-burdened owners and renters through lower SZSQb`WQ `ObSa Oa QO\ O Q][[Wb[S\b b] W[^ZS[S\bW\U S\S`Ug STÀQWS\b designs as part of rehabilitation and new construction. Finally, the redevelopment efforts in downtown Palatine can offer residents ways to reduce transportation costs through the creation of compact neighborhoods.

), 8c\h_ZXd JeZ_\jo e] :_l_b <dĂś_d\\hi% KhX]Ă’Z >\d\hXj\[ Yo D_n\[$Li\ ;\l\befc\dji Ă… J_n$ Region Study Using Consistent Built Environmental Measures. Journal of Urban Planning, October 2010.

Housing and Transportation @d h\Z\dj o\Xhi# :EK [\l\bef\[ Xd Xbj\hdXj_l\ mXo je [\Ă’d\ “affordable housingâ€? as housing which costs no more than 45 percent of both housing and transportation costs. According to Ă’Ăľkh\i ]hec :EK# (. f\hZ\dj e] jof_ZXb h\Ăľ_edXb ^eki\^eb[i X 2.73 person household earning $60,289) would pay less than 45 percent of household income on housing and transportation costs ZecY_d\[ m^\d b_l_dĂľ _d GXbXj_d\% K^_i Xbj\hdXj\ c\Xikh\ Ă’d[i less affordable housing in the Village than the traditional U.S. Census method.

Residential energy use by municipality compared to Cook County, 2007 COOK COUNTY

PALATINE

7,692 kWh

7,817 kWh

$828

$841

1,130 Therms

875 Therms

Average Annual $ for Natural Gas per Household*

$1,274

$777

Average Annual Energy Costs

$2,102

$1,618

Average Electricity Use per Household Average Annual $ for Electricity per Household* Average Natural Gas Use per Household

JekhZ\1 :EK <d\hĂśo :ecckd_jo GheĂ’b\ *Calculated using average residential sales per kilowatt hour (kWh) (Illinois Commerce Commission Utility Sales Statistics 2007).

92

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

Recommended Strategies 6OdW\U QO`STcZZg O\OZghSR >OZObW\Sša Qc``S\b O\R ^`]XSQbSR V]caW\U needs, a number of practical and achievable housing strategies will allow the Village to build upon its considerable assets while also addressing its future challenges. Maintaining housing supply /a S[^VOaWhSR bV`]cUV]cb bVWa `S^]`b >OZObW\S¸a QV]WQS ]T WT O\R how to grow will impact its ability to maintain a balanced housing ab]QY OTT]`ROPZS b] O \c[PS` ]T W\Q][S ZSdSZa 7T bVS DWZZOUS QV]]aSa not to grow, demand to live in Palatine will remain strong, pushing c^ V]caW\U ^`WQSa 0SQOcaS ]T bVWa ^]aaWPWZWbg OZ]\U eWbV O\ OUW\U V]caW\U ab]QY bVS DWZZOUS aV]cZR Q]\bW\cS b] S[^VOaWhS bVS importance of maintaining the quality of all local housing units. Of particular importance is the quality of multi-family dwellings which provide 87 percent of the local rental stock. Palatine already `SQ]U\WhSa bVS W[^]`bO\QS ]T [OW\bOW\W\U bVS _cOZWbg ]T Wba `S\bOZ housing stock through its rental licensing program. This system requires the licensing of all rental units in the community and includes a tiered approach to inspections, with more stringent requirements falling on poor performers. Rental licensing The Village’s current rental license program requires that all ZWQS\aSSa ObbS\R bVS 1`W[S 4`SS ;cZbW 6]caW\U Q]c`aS ]TTS`SR Pg the community. As other communities, currently or in the future, OR]^b 1`W[S 4`SS ;cZbW 6]caW\U ]` ZO\RZ]`R SRcQObW]\ `S_cW`S[S\ba the Village should partner with Collaborative members on local ^`]U`O[[W\U AcQV O ^`]U`O[ Q]cZR PSQ][S []`S Obb`OQbWdS b] landlords if tied to incentives for participation. Moreover, the Village should consider gathering the same information (ownership, management, unit type, etc.) as the other Collaborative communities. 0g Q]ZZSQbW\U bVS aO[S W\T]`[ObW]\ W\ bVS aO[S T]`[Ob >OZObW\S QO\ work with its partners on common rental housing issues, including addressing problem landlords across a number of communities. Downtown Palatine 7\ bVS ^Oab RSQORS >OZObW\S RSdSZ]^SR Wba R]e\b]e\ W\b] O [WfSR use neighborhood. Opportunities for additional mixed-use and multi-family development remain. The Village should continue its downtown redevelopment efforts to provide a mix of higher density housing types for all income groups in close proximity to transit, responding to the community’s projected housing needs in this report. Housing rehabilitation While new housing options are important, many seniors will want to abOg W\ bVSW` Qc``S\b V][S 5WdS\ bVS dW\bOUS ]T >OZObW\Sša V]caW\U stock combined with an aging population, the Village should consider creating a housing rehabilitation incentive program, with a focus ]\ VSZ^W\U ]ZRS` `SaWRS\ba OUS W\ ^ZOQS AbO\RO`Ra T]` `SVOPWZWbObW]\ can be developed by working with the Collaborative to develop an ÂśOUW\U W\ ^ZOQS¡ UcWRS AcQV O ^`]U`O[ aV]cZR WRS\bWTg W[^]`bO\b []RWĂ€QObW]\a \SSRSR b] W[^`]dS OQQSaaWPWZWbg SZW[W\ObS PO``WS`a O\R create safer spaces.

3f^Z]`S \Se Tc\RW\U a]c`QSa /a \]bSR ^`SdW]caZg 1205 Tc\RW\U VSZ^a ^Og T]` [O\g ]T bVS Village’s current housing and social service efforts. Additional funding sources would help speed implementation of this report. Therefore, the Village should explore new funding sources for local housing activities. One such option may be joining the Cook County 6=;3 1]\a]`bWc[ OZZ]eW\U bVS DWZZOUS OQQSaa b] TSRS`OZ Tc\Ra T]` rehabilitation, new construction, and housing services for low- and moderate-income households. Sustainability and Affordability CbWZWbg O\R [OW\bS\O\QS Q]aba O`S YSg Q][^]\S\ba ]T O\g V]caSV]ZRša ability to afford a unit. Therefore, working with the Collaborative, the Village should identify funding sources for S\S`Ug STĂ€QWS\Qg ^`]XSQba T]` P]bV aW\UZS TO[WZg O\R [cZbW TO[WZg ab`cQbc`Sa =\QS Tc\RW\U Wa WRS\bWĂ€SR >OZObW\S aV]cZR RSdSZ]^ O program which focuses on cost-burdened households. A review of C A 1S\aca RObO W\RWQObSa bVOb bVS VWUVSab ^S`QS\bOUS ]T `S\bS`a paying more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs are T]c\R W\ # b] ' c\Wb PcWZRW\Ua Foreclosures 7\ bVS aV]`b bS`[ ]\S ]T bVS DWZZOUSša []ab ^`SaaW\U V]caW\U WaacSa Wa the impact of foreclosures, in particular condominium foreclosures. 7b Wa `SQ][[S\RSR bVOb >OZObW\S T]Qca ]\ `SZObW]\aVW^ PcWZRW\U Z]QOZZg thereby creating a base for the regional efforts touched on previously in this report. Â’ CaS bVS T]`SQZ]ac`S RObO ^`]dWRSR bV`]cUV >cPZWQ /Qb '$ &#$ O\R @SQ]`R 7\T]`[ObW]\ AS`dWQSa b] [O^ O\R []\Wb]` the location and change of foreclosures within the Village. AcQV RObO QO\ PS ^O`bWQcZO`Zg caSTcZ T]` bVS DWZZOUS Oa Wb e]`Ya with other Collaborative members to target foreclosure prevention services and heightened code enforcement services, including rental monitoring. Â’ CbWZWhS T]`SQZ]ac`S b`OQYW\U b] RSdSZ]^ bO`USbSR T]`SQZ]ac`S prevention and disposition services through the Collaborative. Â’ 1`SObS O `SUWab`ObW]\ ^`]U`O[ T]` Q]\R][W\Wc[ O\R townhouse associations which collects information on who manages the association, who should be contacted and the number of rental units. Â’ 1][PW\S bVS W\T]`[ObW]\ T`][ P]bV ]T bVSaS STT]`ba b]( Â’ ;]\Wb]` bVS \c[PS` ]T T]`SQZ]ac`Sa eWbVW\ individual buildings. Â’ CaS O\\cOZ `SUWab`ObW]\ `S_cW`S[S\ba b] RWaQcaa RObO b`S\Ra eWbV associations and hear concerns and issues. Â’ 2SdSZ]^ PS\QV[O`Ya WRS\bWTgW\U eVS\ O ^`]^S`bg Wa Q]\aWRS`SR Âśb`]cPZSR¡ \c[PS` ^S`QS\bOUS ]T T]`SQZ]ac`Sa \c[PS` percentage of rentals, number of different rental owners, utility shutoffs). Â’ E]`Y eWbV bVS 1]ZZOP]`ObWdS b] RSdSZ]^ W\bS`dS\bW]\ ab`ObSUWSa for particularly “troubledâ€? properties.

HOUSING POLICY PLAN: PALATINE

93

Urban Design Focus Area

Conclusion

Design Workshop

Palatine’s current housing stock provides options for people of all ages and incomes. Yet as a desirable community with an aging housing stock and limited room for growth, the Village could be subject to rising home and rent prices over the next 30 years, which would reduce the diversity of housing options depending on how it chooses to address future growth. Therefore, the Village should [OfW[WhS ]^^]`bc\WbWSa T]` U`]ebV acQV Oa W\ R]e\b]e\ >OZObW\S O\R bVS @O\R 6WQYa 2c\RSS b`WO\UZS eVWZS RWZWUS\bZg aSSYW\U to maintain and improve the Village’s diverse housing stock for residents of all income levels.

7\ 8c\S bVS 6][Sa T]` O 1VO\UW\U @SUW]\ bSO[ Q]\RcQbSR O community workshop in Palatine. Residents, community leaders, DWZZOUS ]TÀQWOZa O\R ]bVS`a ^`SaS\bSR bVSW` dWSea ]\ O DWZZOUS aSZSQbSR T]Qca O`SO( O ^]`bW]\ ]T 6WQYa @]OR AbOYSV]ZRS`a Ob the meeting focused on the housing opportunities for this area, recommending a mix of two-story multi-family buildings, courtyard homes and cottage housing. Participants discussed the need b] [OfW[WhW\U ^]bS\bWOZ Q]\\SQbW]\a b] P]`RS`W\U [cZbW TO[WZg developments, allowing the area to function as a neighborhood. The community feedback shaped the recommended strategies in this report, including short-term and long-term recommendations designed to allow Palatine to implement its local vision over a number of years.

Rand-Hicks-Dundee Triangle BVS O`SO Q]\bOW\a [O\g SZS[S\ba ]T O U`SOb \SWUVP]`V]]R( ]^S\ space, a mix of single- and multi-family housing for owners and renters at multiple price points, numerous retail choices, nearby schools, and proximity to regional roads. Design of the area, V]eSdS` ^`SdS\ba Wb T`][ [SZRW\U W\b] ]\S 0SQOcaS ]T Wba ^]bS\bWOZ T]` \Se RSdSZ]^[S\b ]dS`aWhSR `SaWRS\bWOZ Z]ba OZ]\U 6WQYa @]OR and Dundee Road, deep lots north along Rand Road) and better W\bSU`ObW]\ >OZObW\S aV]cZR T]Qca ]\ bVS T]ZZ]eW\U eWbVW\ bVWa O`SO( ’ >c`acS ab`ObSUWQ RSdSZ]^[S\b ]^^]`bc\WbWSa eWbVW\ bVWa O`SO Oa WRS\bWÀSR W\ bVS 1][^`SVS\aWdS >ZO\ W\QZcRW\U [cZbW TO[WZg V]caW\U OZ]\U 6WQYa @]OR O\R ^]`bW]\a ]T 2c\RSS @]OR <Se development of all types should provide quality pedestrian and bike linkages between residential areas and retail. ’ 4]` SfWabW\U O`SOa bVS DWZZOUS aV]cZR T]Qca ]\ W\T`Oab`cQbc`S W[^`]dS[S\ba acQV Oa O Q][^ZSbS aWRSeOZY Q`]aaeOZY \Sbe]`Y bike infrastructure, and bike routes. The lack of linkages is particularly noticeable among multi-family developments.

Maintaining older developments are an important part of preserving a balanced housing stock. Source: CMAP.

94

Source: CMAP.

95

Housing Policy Plan: Rolling Meadows Project Summary Like many of its neighbors, Rolling Meadows has numerous OaaSba bVOb [OYS Wb O\ Obb`OQbWdS Q][[c\Wbg Ab`ORRZW\U bVS 7ZZW\]Wa @]cbS #! O\R 7 ' W\bS`QVO\US bVS 1Wbg Wa Z]QObSR Ob bVS W\bS`aSQbW]\ ]T be] YSg `SUW]\OZ `]OReOga <]b ac`^`WaW\UZg many of the City’s businesses are located along these routes. =ZWdSb <OhO`S\S C\WdS`aWbg O\R <]`bVeSab AcPc`PO\ 1]ZZSUS provide educational opportunities to workers and residents. A mix of multi-family and single-family housing provides workers with housing options in strong neighborhoods. Residents take ^`WRS W\ _cOZWbg aQV]]Za >O`Ya ZW\W\U AOZb 1`SSY ^`]dWRS U`SOb \Obc`OZ a^OQSa >OQS Pca `]cbSa OZ]\U /ZU]\_cW\ @]OR O\R 5]ZT Road link these assets via public transportation. As housing issues have emerged, Rolling Meadows has focused on addressing these challenges. The community maintains a quality rental licensing system, has a strong code enforcement program, and tracks the spread of foreclosures. As older commercial RSdSZ]^[S\ba OZ]\U 9W`QV]TT @]OR OUS bVS Q][[c\Wbg VOa Sf^Z]`SR ways to redevelop these properties. Quick action stems both from a desire to maintain an attractive community and from a focus on caring for all existing residents. While the City has aggressively addressed these issues, challenges `S[OW\ ;cZbW TO[WZg V]caW\U PcWZb ^`W[O`WZg W\ bVS '$ a O\R '% a continues to age and be in need of rehabilitation. The regional foreclosure crisis, which developed after 2007, has impacted selected properties and neighborhoods in the City, including Q]\R][W\Wc[a AS\W]` V]caW\U OZ`SORg W\ aV]`b ac^^Zg ÀUc`Sa b] be a growing need as the City’s population ages. The redevelopment ^]bS\bWOZ ]T O`SOa OZ]\U /ZU]\_cW\ @]OR O\R 9W`QV]TT @]OR O`S \]b fully tapped. As Rolling Meadows faces these issues and others in the future, interjurisdictional partnerships can help expand the City’s toolbox and supplement its efforts.

BVWa `S^]`b O\OZghSa SfWabW\U V]caW\U Q]\RWbW]\a W\ @]ZZW\U Meadows and makes projections about future housing needs. 7b Q]\QZcRSa eWbV `SQ][[S\RObW]\a T]` Tcbc`S V]caW\U OQbW]\ W\QZcRW\U( Â’ Addressing condominium foreclosures through continued local and regional efforts. Â’ Considering the adoption of a landlord education program. Â’ Using the Northwest Suburban Housing Collaborative as a resource for a variety of housing issues. Â’ Continuing efforts to redevelop the area along Kirchoff Road. Â’ 3 f^Z]`W\U ]^^]`bc\WbWSa W\ a]cbVS`\ @]ZZW\U ;SOR]ea along Algonquin Road.

96

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

Existing Conditions Demographic and Economic Trends @]ZZW\U ;SOR]ea Wa P]`RS`SR Pg /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba b] bVS \]`bVSOab >OZObW\S b] bVS \]`bVeSab O\R AQVOc[Pc`U b] bVS a]cbVeSab ;cQV ]T bVS 1Wbg¹a a]cbVS`\ P]c\RO`g OZ]\U 5]ZT @]OR Wa P]`RS`SR Pg 0caaS E]]Ra BVS ^]^cZObW]\ ]T @]ZZW\U ;SOR]ea Wa Qc``S\bZg O`]c\R " O\R has remained essentially the same for the past decade. The Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) produced population O\R V]caSV]ZR ^`]XSQbW]\a Oa ^O`b ]T 5= B= " bVS aSdS\ Q]c\bg region’s comprehensive regional plan for sustainable prosperity over the next 30 years. $ BVSaS ÀUc`Sa W\RWQObS bVOb WT 5= B= " Wa implemented and if selective development opportunities are chosen, bVS 1Wbg¹a ^]^cZObW]\ Q]cZR U`]e b] % # " W\ " O\ W\Q`SOaS ]T ! # `SaWRS\ba 27 AcQV O\ W\Q`SOaS e]cZR `S_cW`S `]cUVZg # additional dwelling units that, as will be noted later in this report, SfQSSRa bVS SfWabW\U V]caW\U QO^OQWbg ]T bVS 1Wbg AcQV O RWTTS`S\QS ]TTS`a P]bV ^]aWbWdS O\R \SUObWdS Oa^SQba Ab`]\U ^`]XSQbSR RS[O\R bodes well for the long-term health of the Rolling Meadows housing market. Yet, demand outstripping housing supply into the future [Og ^cb c^eO`R ^`Saac`S ]\ V]caW\U ^`WQSa [OYW\U Wb RWTÀQcZb b] maintain a diverse housing stock. Population and change in population, 2000 and 2010 Population, 2000 (Census)

24,604

Population, 2010 (Census)

24,099

Change, 2000-10

-505

Change as %, 2000-10

-2.1

GO TO 2040 Projection, 2040

27,524

Source: U.S. Census and CMAP GO TO 2040 projections.

The City is job rich with over 23,000 jobs spread over a variety of industries. The largest current employment sectors include [O\cTOQbc`W\U O\R OR[W\Wab`ObW]\ 5WdS\ bVSaS ÀUc`Sa bVS ^`SaS\QS ]T <]`bV`c^ 5`c[[O\ 9][Obac ;SbV]RS 3ZSQb`]\WQa and Wal-Mart on the list of largest employers is not surprising. BVS 1Wbg Q]\bOW\a bV`SS bOf W\Q`S[S\b À\O\QW\U B74 RWab`WQba b] a^c` bO`USbSR `SRSdSZ]^[S\b B74 Wa Z]QObSR Ob 9W`QV]TT @]OR and Meadow Drive, comprising the largely vacant shopping center bVOb ]\QS Q]\bOW\SR O 2][W\WQY¹a) bVWa B74 Sf^W`SR W\ B74 Wa Z]QObSR Ob 9W`QV]TT @]OR O\R =eZ 2`WdS) Q][^`WaW\U bV`SS \Se condominium buildings along with ground level retail currently ]QQc^g bVS aWbS B74 ! Q]dS`a O\ SfWabW\U [cZbW TO[WZg O^O`b[S\b Q][^ZSf O\R Q][[S`QWOZ ^`]^S`bWSa Ob /ZU]\_cW\ @]OR O\R @]cbS #!

26 See http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/2040. 27 See the Appendix for more information about these projections.

HkXb_jo d\_õ^Yeh^ee[i Xh\ ed\ e] j^\ :_joÉi [\Ã’d_dõ Z^XhXZj\h_ij_Zi% Source: CMAP.

HOUSING POLICY PLAN: ROLLING MEADOWS

97

Where Do Rolling Meadows’ Workers Live? While people commute to Rolling Meadows from all over the region, the largest single location is Chicago. That Chicago is the largest source of workers is common to many communities in the region. GSb bVS # ^S`QS\b ]T S[^Z]gSSa eV] Q][S T`][ 1VWQOU] Wa bVS

Where do Rolling Meadows’ workers live, 2010?

highest percentage in the Collaborative. A number of employees OZa] Q][S T`][ \SO`Pg Q][[c\WbWSa acQV Oa >OZObW\S AQVOc[Pc`U /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba O\R 6]TT[O\ 3abObSa 4WdS ^S`QS\b ]T ^S]^ZS working in Rolling Meadows also live in Rolling Meadows. Where do Rolling Meadows’ workers live? Job counts by distance/direction in 2010, all workers

15%

N

15%

CHICAGO

4%

PALATINE

4%

ARLINGTON HEIGHTS

3%

ROLLING MEADOWS

3%

SCHAUMBURG

3%

2%

HOFFMAN ESTATES

2%

4%

REMAINDER OF COOK COUNTY

8%

LAKE COUNTY

37%

ALL OTHER LOCATIONS

NE

4%

37%

24%

NW

24%

7,000

3%

4,200 1,400

W

E

SW

SE

8% S

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, LED Data, On-the-Map.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, LED Data, On-the-Map.

98

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

Where Do Rolling Meadows’ Residents Work? BVS W\T`Oab`cQbc`S Q]\\SQbW]\a acQV Oa 7ZZW\]Wa @]cbS #! O\R 7 ' make it easiest for residents to commute to jobs in Chicago along eWbV \SO`Pg O`SOa ZWYS /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba AQVOc[Pc`U >OZObW\S O\R 3ZY 5`]dS DWZZOUS BVS $ ^S`QS\b ]T `SaWRS\ba e]`YW\U W\ 1VWQOU] Wa bVS aSQ]\R VWUVSab ^S`QS\bOUS ]T bVS ÀdS Q][[c\WbWSa /a bVS

region’s largest employment hub, Chicago is the most common RSabW\ObW]\ T]` Q][[cbW\U `SaWRS\ba T]` [O\g Q][[c\WbWSa AWf percent of working residents in Rolling Meadows do so in Rolling ;SOR]ea O ^S`QS\bOUS Q][^O`OPZS b] Q][[c\WbWSa acQV Oa 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS O\R ;]c\b >`]a^SQb

Where do Rolling Meadows’ residents work, 2010?

Where do Rolling Meadows’ residents work? Job counts by distance/direction in 2010, all workers

16%

21%

16%

CHICAGO

10%

ARLINGTON HEIGHTS

N

NW

NE

10%

7%

SCHAUMBURG

6%

ROLLING MEADOWS

5%

PALATINE

4%

ELK GROVE VILLAGE

4,000

8%

2,400

23%

REMAINDER OF COOK COUNTY

8%

LAKE COUNTY

21%

ALL OTHER LOCATIONS

23%

7%

800

W

6%

5%

SW

SE

4% S

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, LED Data, On-the-Map.

E

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, LED Data, On-the-Map.

HOUSING POLICY PLAN: ROLLING MEADOWS

99

Current Housing Analysis AW\UZS TO[WZg RSbOQVSR c\Wba O`S bVS []ab Q][[]\ bg^S ]T V][S W\ @]ZZW\U ;SOR]ea Q][^`WaW\U ## ^S`QS\b ]T bVS ]QQc^WSR V]caW\U stock. The City’s multi-family units include everything from duplexes to large apartment complexes and make up almost 37 percent of occupied units. This multi-family stock is particularly important for Rolling Meadows rental market because it provides & ^S`QS\b ]T Z]QOZ `S\bOZ c\Wba 6]caSV]ZRa [OYW\U []`S bVO\ $100,000 almost exclusively own. 7\ bVS ^Oab RSQORS bVS \c[PS` ]T ]e\S`a O\R `S\bS`a W\ @]ZZW\U Meadows spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing W\Q`SOaSR aWU\WĂ€QO\bZg BVS U`]ebV VOa PSS\ U`SObS` O[]\U `S\bS`a with cost burdened households increasing from 32 percent to over # ^S`QS\b 1][^O`ObWdSZg bVS \c[PS` ]T Q]ab Pc`RS\SR ]e\S`a increased from 22 percent to 39 percent between 2000 and 2010. 7\Q`SOaSa O[]\Uab `S\bS`a eS`S R`WdS\ Pg bVS U`]eW\U \c[PS` ]T V]caSV]ZRa ^OgW\U []`S bVO\ # ^S`QS\b ]T bVSW` W\Q][S ]\ V]caW\U 5`]ebV O[]\Uab ]e\S`a eOa R`WdS\ Pg V]caSV]ZRa ^OgW\U PSbeSS\ ! ^S`QS\b O\R # ^S`QS\b ]T bVSW` W\Q][S ]\ V]caW\U Q]aba BVS increasing number of cost-burdened owners and renters in Rolling Meadows over the last decade is consistent with national trends. /QQ]`RW\U b] O\OZgaWa Pg 6O`dO`R C\WdS`aWbg ÂśbVS `SQSaaW]\ ­ RWR little to reduce housing outlays for many Americans,â€? due in part to declining incomes, slow employment growth, and more stringent credit requirements.28

What is “Affordable Housing?� What constitutes affordable housing varies from household to household, as the measure is relative. For this report, the following U.S. Census guidelines were used: š “Affordable housing� is housing that costs no more than 30 percent of household income (including utilities, insurance, and taxes). š “Unaffordable housing� is housing that costs between 30 percent and 50 percent of household income. š “Severely unaffordable housing� is housing that costs more than 50 percent of household income.

Rolling Meadows housing type by tenure OWNER-OCCUPIED

RENTER-OCCUPIED

5,000 328 4,631 4,000

1,810

3,000

2,000

1,488 1,000

118 656

SINGLE FAMILY TOWNHOME Source: American Community Survey 2006-10.

28 Joint Center for Housing Studies. (June, 2012). State of the Nation’s Housing 2012. Harvard University.

MULTIFAMILY

0 0 OTHER

100

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

Rolling Meadows tenure by units in structure

Rolling Meadows tenure by household income, in number of occupied units

OWNER-OCCUPIED

RENTER-OCCUPIED

OWNER-OCCUPIED

RENTER-OCCUPIED

1 (DETACHED) 1,800

1 (ATTACHED)

1,600

2 UNITS

1,400

3 OR 4 UNITS

1,200

5 TO 9 UNITS

1,000

10 TO 19 UNITS

800 20 TO 49 UNITS 600 50 OR MORE UNITS 400 MOBILE HOME 200 BOAT, RV, VAN, ETC. 0 0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

<15k

5,000

<35k

<50k

Source: American Community Survey 2006-10.

Source: American Community Survey 2006-10.

Rolling Meadows rental and owner housing affordability OWNER HOUSING

RENTAL HOUSING

11% 31% 27%

46% 62% 23%

AFFORDABLE

UNAFFORDABLE

Source: American Community Survey 2006-10.

SEVERELY UNAFFORDABLE

<75k

<100k

<150k

150k+

HOUSING POLICY PLAN: ROLLING MEADOWS

101

Current Ownership Housing

Current Rental Housing

4]` V]caSV]ZRa [OYW\U PSbeSS\ # O\R bVS \c[PS` ]T V]caW\U c\Wba QZ]aSZg [ObQVSa bVS \c[PS` ]T V]caSV]ZRa 5O^a exist in the supply for low- and high income households, particularly bV]aS SO`\W\U []`S bVO\ 0SQOcaS ]T bVSaS aV]`bTOZZa many households choose to either “move up� or “move down.� 6WUVS` W\Q][S ]e\S`a ]TbS\ QV]]aS b] []dS R]e\ ]QQc^gW\U less costly housing and spending less than 30 percent of their income on housing costs. Lower income households must move up, spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs O\R PSQ][W\U Q]ab Pc`RS\SR 7\ @]ZZW\U ;SOR]ea V]caSV]ZRa SO`\W\U PSZ]e # `S^`SaS\b ^O`b ]T bVS U`]eW\U \c[PS` ]T Q]ab burdened owners. Many low income homeowners do not carry a []`bUOUS 0OaSR ]\ $ /[S`WQO\ 1][[c\Wbg Ac`dSg /1A RObO $ ^S`QS\b ]T V][S]e\S`a eWbV]cb O []`bUOUS O`S ]ZRS` bVO\ $# 1]\dS`aSZg ]e\S`a eV] QO``g O []`bUOUS O`S bg^WQOZZg e]`YW\U OUS V]caSV]ZRa eWbV #" ^S`QS\b ]T ]e\S`a eWbV O []`bUOUS PSbeSS\ !" O\R ##

While moderate and middle income renters in Rolling Meadows can access numerous units within their price range, renters making PSZ]e !# O\R OP]dS %# TOQS aV]`bOUSa ]T OdOWZOPZS c\Wba Many upper income families may choose to move down and save their money for other uses. As for lower income renters, some may be seniors who can pay higher rents by dipping into their savings or ]bVS` À\O\QWOZ OaaSba 0OaSR ]\ $ /1A RObO OP]cb & ^S`QS\b ]T Q]ab Pc`RS\SR `S\bS`a O`S ]ZRS` bVO\ $# BVS OUS U`]c^ eWbV O disproportionately high number of cost burdened renters is age # b] !" [OYW\U c^ ! ^S`QS\b ]T OZZ `S\bS`a Pcb !' ^S`QS\b ]T Q]ab burdened renters.

Rolling Meadows comparison of owner household incomes with occupied units affordable at each income level 2010

Rolling Meadows comparison of rental household incomes with occupied units affordable at each income level 2010

ACTUAL HOUSEHOLDS AT INCOME LEVEL 2010

ACTUAL HOUSEHOLDS AT INCOME LEVEL 2010

ESTIMATED OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS AFFORDABLE AT INCOME LEVEL (WITHOUT MORTGAGE) 2010

ESTIMATED OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS AFFORDABLE AT INCOME LEVEL 2010

ESTIMATED OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS AFFORDABLE AT INCOME LEVEL (WITH MORTGAGE) 2010

1,000

1,800 1,600

800

1,400

600

1,200 1,000

400

800 600

200

400 200 0

<$15

<$35

<$50

<$75

<$100

<$150

$150+

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese Envision Tomorrow Balanced Housing Model using ACS 2006-10 inputs.

0

<$15

<$35

<$50

<$75

<$100

<$150

$150+

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese Envision Tomorrow Balanced Housing Model using ACS 2006-10 inputs.

102

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

Today’s Market Segments and Market Preferences B]]Za RSdSZ]^SR Pg O ZSORW\U eSZZ Y\]e\ [O`YSb `SaSO`QV À`[ 3\dW`]\[S\bOZ AgabS[a @SaSO`QV 7\abWbcbS 3A@7 eS`S caSR to enrich the understanding of the housing types preferred by families that live in Rolling Meadows today. The basic unit of the 3A@7 1][[c\Wbg BO^Sab`g agabS[ Wa bVS \SWUVP]`V]]R POaSR ]\ C A 1S\aca PZ]QY U`]c^a 3A@7 VOa QZOaaWÀSR SdS`g \SWUVP]`V]]R W\ bVS Q]c\b`g Oa ]\S ]T $# [O`YSb aSU[S\ba BVSaS aSU[S\ba O`S bVS\ Q][PW\SR W\b] ]\S ]T :WTS;]RS U`]c^a ASU[S\ba O\R U`]c^a O`S OaaWU\SR b] \SWUVP]`V]]Ra Pg a]`bW\U []`S bVO\ $ attributes including income, employment, home value, housing type, education, household composition, age, and other key RSbS`[W\O\ba ]T Q]\ac[S` PSVOdW]` <SWUVP]`V]]Ra eWbV bVS []ab similar characteristics are combined while neighborhoods showing divergent characteristics are separated. Four groups into which 98 percent of Rolling Meadows households TOZZ eS`S WRS\bWÀSR( C^aQOZS /dS\cSa 6WUV A]QWSbg 5Z]POZ @]]ba O\R 6WUV 6]^Sa

BVS ZO`USab acQV U`]c^ ÂśC^aQOZS /dS\cSa ¡ bS\R b] PS OTĂ cS\b households that prefer a variety of housing types and invest in bVSW` V][Sa bV`]cUV `S[]RSZW\U ]` ZO\RaQO^W\U Âś6WUV A]QWSbg¡ V]caSV]ZRa O`S OZa] OTĂ cS\b RWabW\UcWaVSR Pg bVSW` W\bS`Sab W\ aW\UZS TO[WZg V][Sa /P]cb ^S`QS\b ]T V]caSV]ZRa O`S QZOaaWĂ€SR Oa Âś5Z]POZ @]]ba ¡ `SĂ SQbW\U bVS 1Wbgša U`]eW\U /aWO\ O\R :ObW\] populations. This group tends to have children and rent in multic\Wb PcWZRW\Ua 4W\OZZg Âś6WUV 6]^Sa¡ `S^`SaS\b g]c\U []PWZS college-educated households looking for both housing and work ]^^]`bc\WbWSa AcQV `SaWRS\ba ZWdS W\ aW\UZS TO[WZg V][Sa ]` [cZbW unit buildings. What does this mean for the future housing needs of Rolling ;SOR]ea- 4W`ab Wb [SO\a bVOb []`S bVO\ & ^S`QS\b ]T Qc``S\b residents have at least a moderate propensity to live in a compact neighborhood (e.g. containing a range of housing types that encourage walking to retail stores, neighborhood amenities, other V][Sa O\R b`O\aWb ZW\Sa ASQ]\RZg bVS U`]c^a VSZ^ Q]\Ă€`[ O\R RSS^S\ W\T]`[ObW]\ UZSO\SR T`][ C A 1S\aca RObO BVS `]ZS ]T bVS C^aQOZS /dS\cS aSU[S\b Oa bVS ZO`USab Z]QOZ U`]c^ Q]``Sa^]\Ra eWbV bVS Ă€\RW\U bVOb aW\UZS TO[WZg c\Wba O`S bVS []ab Q][[]\ V]caW\U bg^S ;]`S]dS` C^aQOZS /dS\cSa 5Z]POZ @]]ba O\R 6WUV 6]^Sa help show demand for denser rental and owner options. Finally, while not an exact guide to the future, these groups can also be useful when planning for future housing needs, as will be explored in subsequent sections.

Rolling Meadows Lifemode groups LIFEMODE GROUPS

INCOME

FAMILY TYPE

AVERAGE AGE

% OF TOTAL

HOUSING TYPES

TENURE

Middle-Upper

Mixed

39.1

65.3%

Single-family, townhome, multi-unit

Own

High Society

Upper

Married Couples

44.9

15.6%

Single-family

Own

Global Roots

Modest

Family Mixed

27.3

11.6%

Multi-unit

Rent

High Hopes

Middle

Family Mixed

31.1

5.5%

Multi-unit and townhome

Rent/ own

Upscale Avenues

Source: CMAP analysis of ESRI Community Tapestry Segments.

HOUSING POLICY PLAN: ROLLING MEADOWS

103

Projecting Future Housing Needs While all of the previous information describes the current housing market in Rolling Meadows, the best housing planning takes into account those who might live in the community in the future. Census data, CMAP’s local population and household projections for bVS gSO` " O\R bVS 3A@7 BO^Sab`g [O`YSb aSU[S\b RObO OZZ]e T]` some realistic estimates of who will want to live in Rolling Meadows over the next 30 years and what kinds of housing would allow the City to meet the needs of current and future residents.

Rolling Meadows 2010 households and housing stock compared with 2040 owner demand

Future Ownership Needs

1,600

Over the next 30 years the number of households could increase Ob OZZ W\Q][S ZSdSZa 6]caSV]ZRa [OYW\U PSbeSS\ # O\R %# e]cZR Sf^S`WS\QS bVS ZO`USab W\Q`SOaSa 2cS b] acQV U`]ebV units would be needed across all income groups, particularly for V]caSV]ZRa [OYW\U ZSaa bVO\ # O\R []`S bVO\ While upper income households may choose to move down, spending less on housing, lower income owner households must move up without an expanded supply, increasing the number of cost burdened owners. While shortages in housing are projected for a number of income groups, the people who would occupy a home differ depending on income. For lower-income households, particularly those earning ZSaa bVO\ !# aS\W]`a e]cZR [OYS c^ O aWU\WÀQO\b \c[PS` ]T ]e\S`a 1c``S\bZg bVS 1Wbg¹a [O`YSb aSU[S\ba R] \]b RW`SQbZg `SÁSQb RS[O\R Pg aS\W]` QWbWhS\a BVS U`]ebV ]T bVWa Q]V]`b [Og W\b`]RcQS O \Se [OX]` [O`YSb aSU[S\b ¶AS\W]` AbgZSa · Q][[]\ W\ ]bVS` 1]ZZOP]`ObWdS Q][[c\WbWSa AS\W]` AbgZSa `SaWRS\ba VOdS V]caW\U preferences as diverse as their circumstances, residing in singlefamily homes, retirement homes, or high-rises. G]c\US` V]caSV]ZRa OUS # b] "" acQV Oa bVS 6WUV 6]^Sa mentioned before, could make up a big part of future middle income owners, boosting demand for denser ownership options. Middleaged homeowners would be the core of the City’s owner market OQ`]aa OZZ W\Q][S ZSdSZa `SÁSQbW\U bVS Q]\bW\cSR W[^]`bO\QS ]T bVS C^aQOZS /dS\cSa O\R 6WUV A]QWSbg aSU[S\ba

OCCUPIED HOUSING STOCK AFFORDABLE AT 30% OF INCOME (2010) DEMAND AT INCOME LEVEL (2010) PROJECTED DEMAND AT INCOME LEVEL (2040) 1,800

1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0

<$15

<$35

<$50

<$75

<$100

<$150

$150+

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese Envision Tomorrow Balanced Housing Model using ACS 2006-10 and CMAP GO TO 2040 household forecast inputs.

Rolling Meadows projected owner demand by age of household <25

25-44

45-64

65+

1,750

1,500

1,250

1,000

750

500

250

0 <15k

<35k

<50k

<75k

<100k

<150k

150k+

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese Envision Tomorrow Balanced Housing Model using ACS 2006-10 and CMAP GO TO 2040 household forecast inputs.

104

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

Future Rental Needs

Rolling Meadows 2010 households and housing stock compared with 2040 renter demand

7b Wa ^`]XSQbSR bVOb ^]^cZObW]\ U`]ebV Q]cZR W\Q`SOaS bVS \c[PS` of renters in Rolling Meadows at a slower rate than the number of ]e\S`a eWbV RS[O\R T]` ]\Zg #! ORRWbW]\OZ `S\bOZ c\Wba BVS ZO`USab U`]ebV e]cZR PS W\ [WRRZS W\Q][S `S\bOZ V]caSV]ZRa 5WdS\ bVS Cityโ s current rental stock, the shortfalls for low-income residents would continue to create additional cost burdened households. C\ZWYS eWbV bVS 1Wbgยนa ]e\S` ^]^cZObW]\ bVS Q][^]aWbW]\ ]T future renters remains relatively constant across income groups; V]caSV]ZRa OUS # b] "" `S^`SaS\b bVS Q]`S ]T bVS 1Wbgยนa ^]aaWPZS future renters. While senior rental options maybe important for V]caSV]ZRa SO`\W\U PSbeSS\ # O\R !# bVS Qc``S\b Z]QOZ `S\bS` [O`YSb eWZZ Q]\bW\cS b] aSS RS[O\R Pg 5Z]POZ @]]ba O\R 6WUV 6]^Sa V]caSV]ZRa eV] aSSY [cZbW TO[WZg ReSZZW\Ua O\R b]e\V][Sa 0SQOcaS P]bV ]T bVSaS V]caSV]ZR bg^Sa bg^WQOZZg Q]\bOW\ QVWZR`S\ RS[O\R [Og W\Q`SOaS T]` [cZbW TO[WZg ]^bW]\a O^^`]^`WObSZg aWhSR for families.

OCCUPIED HOUSING STOCK AFFORDABLE AT 30% OF INCOME (2010) DEMAND AT INCOME LEVEL (2010) PROJECTED DEMAND AT INCOME LEVEL (2040)

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

<$15

<$35

<$50

<$75

<$100

<$150

$150+

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese Envision Tomorrow Balanced Housing Model using ACS 2006-10 and CMAP GO TO 2040 household forecast inputs.

Rolling Meadows projected renter demand by age of household <25

25-44

45-64

65+

1,000

800

600

400

200

0 <15k

<35k

<50k

<75k

<100k

<150k

150k+

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese Envision Tomorrow Balanced Housing Model using ACS 2006-10 and CMAP GO TO 2040 household forecast inputs.

HOUSING POLICY PLAN: ROLLING MEADOWS

105

Future residents could demand more multi-family housing.

Housing Demand by Type of Unit When combining projections for future owners and renters in Rolling Meadows, there is one possible picture of demand T]` ORRWbW]\OZ V]caW\U c\Wba Pg bg^S W\ " EVOb S[S`USa Wa O ¶POZO\QSR V]caW\U· ^`]ÀZS eWbV RS[O\R T]` OP]cb !"" ORRWbW]\OZ single family homes, 293 townhomes, and 890 multi-family homes PSbeSS\ \]e O\R " /a \]bSR ^`SdW]caZg bVSaS ÀUc`Sa O`S POaSR on projections; real growth may be more or less than estimated. The ultimate decision regarding if and how to grow is a local one.

Source: CMAP.

Rolling Meadows future balanced housing profile INCREMENTAL UNITS (INCLUDES NEW UNITS, REHABILITATED VACANT UNITS AND VACANCIES, 2010-2040) OCCUPIED HOUSING SUPPLY ROLLING MEADOWS, 2010

4,500 890

4,000 140

3,500 3,471 3,298

3,000 2,500 2,000 204

1,500

1,488

1,000

293 744

500 0 LARGE LOT SF

SMALL LOT SF

TOWNHOME

MULTIFAMILY

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese Envision Tomorrow Balanced Housing Model using ACS 2006-10 and CMAP GO TO 2040 household forecast inputs.

106

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

Capacity for Growth

Rolling Meadows maximum capacity by unit type

Estimated future population and household growth is only one-half of the equation in considering future housing needs. As a community with numerous assets, it is understandable why many people want to live in Rolling Meadows now and in the future. 0cb b] ^ZO\ T]` Tcbc`S V]caSV]ZRa O\R V]caW\U Wb Wa OZa] W[^]`bO\b to look at capacity, particularly for a built-out community. To understand the City’s ability to accommodate projected growth, be] YSg a]c`QSa ]T QO^OQWbg eS`S `SdWSeSR( RSdSZ]^[S\b redevelopment and vacancy.29

35%

Development/Redevelopment Analysis The extent to which Rolling Meadows could grow based on current ZO\R caS `SUcZObW]\a eOa O\OZghSR 7\ `SdWSeW\U 1]]Y 1]c\bg /aaSaa]` RObO dOQO\b O\R `SRSdSZ]^OPZS ^O`QSZa eS`S WRS\bWÀSR (where the land value is greater than the improvement value). BVS\ bVS Q][[c\Wbg¹a Qc``S\b h]\W\U O\R RSdSZ]^[S\b abO\RO`Ra eS`S O^^ZWSR b] ÀUc`S ]cb V]e [O\g c\Wba Q]cZR PS PcWZb W\ @]ZZW\U ;SOR]ea 0OaSR ]\ bVOb O\OZgaWa Wb¹a SabW[ObSR bVOb @]ZZW\U Meadows has the capacity for approximately 381 new dwelling c\Wba AWfbg ÀdS ^S`QS\b ]T \Se c\Wba Q]cZR PS [cZbW TO[WZg eVWZS !# percent could be single-family homes. This capacity would allow the 1Wbg b] OQQ][[]RObS OP]cb # ^S`QS\b ]T bVS ^`]XSQbSR ^]^cZObW]\ growth, or 900 new residents.

35%

LARGE LOT SF

65%

MULTIFAMILY

65%

Source: CMAP analysis of Rolling Meadows zoning ordinance, Cook County assessor data.

Maximum capacity by unit type TYPE

UNITS

Large Lot SF (>8,000 s.f.)

132

Small Lot SF (<8,000 s.f.)

-

Townhome Multi-family Mobile Home/Other TOTAL

250 381

Source: CMAP analysis of Rolling Meadows zoning ordinance, Cook County assessor data.

29 See the Appendix for more information about the methodology.

HOUSING POLICY PLAN: ROLLING MEADOWS

Existing codes allow for new multi-family housing.

Vacancy Analysis 0SQOcaS ]T bVS Qc``S\b V]caW\U [O`YSb [O\g V][Sa \]e dOQO\b may not be so in the future, allowing people to move into Rolling ;SOR]ea eWbV]cb PcWZRW\U []`S c\Wba /QQ]`RW\U b] $ /1A SabW[ObSa @]ZZW\U ;SOR]ea VOa O^^`]fW[ObSZg "!" dOQO\b V]caW\U c\Wba OP]cb " & ^S`QS\b ]T OZZ V][Sa W\ bVS 1Wbg <]`[OZ Z]\U bS`[ dOQO\Qg `ObSa T]` O ab`]\U Q][[c\Wbg O`S % " ^S`QS\b T]` `S\bOZ c\Wba O\R # ^S`QS\b T]` ]e\S` c\Wba 30 7\ O VSOZbVg [O`YSb bVS 1Wbg e]cZR ]\Zg VOdS O^^`]fW[ObSZg $' dOQO\b c\Wba BVS`ST]`S $# Qc``S\bZg dOQO\b c\Wba Q]cZR PS ]QQc^WSR W\ bVS Tcbc`S Oa Rolling Meadows grows. This capacity would allow the City to accommodate about 11 percent of the projected growth, or about " \Se `SaWRS\ba

Source: CMAP.

Rolling Meadows breakdown of current vacant units VACANT UNITS IN HEALTHY MARKET CURRENT VACANT UNITS TO BE OCCUPIED

400

300

200

100

0 Source: CMAP analysis of ACS 2006-10. 30 See ^jjf1&&mmm%`Z^i%^XhlXh[%\[k&i_j\i&`Z^i%^XhlXh[%\[k&Ã’b\i&m'.$.%f[].

107

108

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

Future Housing Conclusions BOYW\U W\b] OQQ]c\b QO^OQWbg OdOWZOPZS c\RS` RSdSZ]^[S\b redevelopment and vacancy, Rolling Meadows can accommodate !$ ^S`QS\b ]T bVS ^`]XSQbSR V]caW\U c\Wba bVOb Q]cZR PS ORRSR Pg " ]` OP]cb ! ORRWbW]\OZ `SaWRS\ba BVS `S[OW\W\U approximately 2,200 future residents represent unmet demand, people who want to live in Rolling Meadows but cannot due to a lack of available units. Many of these people would be looking for small lot single family homes, townhomes, and multi-family units, as the City’s current codes would accommodate growth for large lot singleTO[WZg c\Wba 0OaSR ]\ bVSaS ÀUc`Sa bVS QV]WQS ]T WT O\R V]e b] U`]e is a critical one. 7T bVS 1Wbg QV]]aSa b] [OW\bOW\ Wba Qc``S\b ^]^cZObW]\ ZSdSZ bVS demand to live in Rolling Meadows over the next 30 years could W\Q`SOaS V]caW\U Q]aba T]` P]bV `S\bS`a O\R ]e\S`a AcQV `WaW\U costs can increase the number of households paying more than 30 percent of their income for housing (as occurred over the past RSQORS O\R [OYS Wb RWTÀQcZb b] [OW\bOW\ O RWdS`aS V]caW\U ab]QY affordable to a wide range of incomes. Without growth, maintenance of the City’s current housing stock, particularly its multi-family housing, becomes paramount.

Rolling Meadows demand vs. vacancy and capacity by housing type, units 2010-40 DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY (2010) VACANT UNITS (2010) ESTIMATED INCREASE IN DEMAND FOR UNITS (2040) 900

800

700

600

500

7T bVS 1Wbg QV]]aSa b] U`]e Wb [cab RSbS`[W\S bVS PSab Z]QObW]\a for growth given the projected types of housing future residents [Og RS[O\R( a[OZZ Z]b aW\UZS TO[WZg V][Sa b]e\V][Sa O\R multi-family units. As a substantially built-out community, À\RW\U Z]QObW]\a b] PcWZR O\g ]T bV]aS c\Wb bg^Sa QO\ PS RWTÀQcZb Changing regulations to accommodate such growth must be considered carefully.

400

Regardless of which route the City chooses, policy makers are encouraged to use these statistics as a guide, focusing on the relative number of single family, multi-family and townhome units eVWQV b]USbVS` `SĂ SQb O POZO\QSR V]caW\U [O`YSb

100

300

200

0 LARGE LOT SF

SMALL LOT SF

TOWNHOME

MULTIFAMILY

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese Envision Tomorrow Balanced Housing Model, Cook County Property Assessor data, and U.S. Census Bureau inputs.

109

HOUSING POLICY PLAN: ROLLING MEADOWS

Sustainability 7\ % bVS 1S\bS` T]` <SWUVP]`V]]R BSQV\]Z]Ug 1<B ^`]RcQSR O\ S\S`Ug O\R S[WaaW]\a ^`]ÀZS T]` @]ZZW\U ;SOR]ea Oa ^O`b ]T bVS ;c\WQW^OZ 3\S`Ug >`]ÀZS >`]XSQb /QQ]`RW\U b] bVS `S^]`b bVS 1Wbg S[WbbSR O\ SabW[ObSR % "& [Sb`WQ b]\a ;B ]T QO`P]\ dioxide (CO2e) per capita, approximately 18 percent more than bVS 1]]Y 1]c\bg S[WaaW]\a ^S` QO^WbO " &$ ;B 1= S EWbV ' percent of local emissions coming from electricity, natural gas, and b`O\a^]`bObW]\ O\g T]`eO`R bVW\YW\U V]caW\U ^ZO\ aV]cZR O\OZghS these areas. The table below highlights residential natural gas and energy usage in the City and Cook County in 2007. At that time, the average Rolling Meadows household spent less on energy costs than the average Cook County household due to lower natural gas usage. One key part ]T Z]QOZ S\S`Ug caOUS Wa bVS V][S VSObW\U a]c`QS 0OaSR ]\ RObO T`][ bVS $ /1A \Obc`OZ UOa Wa bVS R][W\O\b Z]QOZ V][S VSObW\U source, used by 87 percent of households. Electricity provides heat for a larger percentage of renters than owners (23 percent vs. 9 percent). /QQ]`RW\U b] % 1<B RObO @]ZZW\U ;SOR]ea OdS`OUSR O VWUVS` number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per household than Cook 1]c\bg & %&! dS`aca " %" `Sa^SQbWdSZg 0SQOcaS ]T bVS RWTTS`ence in mileage, Rolling Meadows residents pay approximately $187 more per month in transportation costs than the average county V]caSV]ZR POaSR ]\ bVS Qc``S\b 7\bS`\OZ @SdS\cS AS`dWQS 7@A mileage reimbursement rate. Research by Reid Ewing and others W\ bVS 8]c`\OZ ]T C`PO\ >ZO\\W\U O\R 2SdSZ]^[S\b VOa aV]e\ bVOb bVS PWUUSab TOQb]` W\ `SRcQW\U D;B Wa T`][ œ^cbbW\U ]TÀQSa aV]^a restaurants, residences, and other codependent activities in close proximity to each other.�31 As discussed previously, the gap between projected housing demand and current capacity could put upward pressure on housing prices for owners and renters over the next 30 years. That said, energy STÀQWS\Qg O\R acabOW\OPWZWbg STT]`ba QO\ VSZ^ [WbWUObS `WaW\U V]caW\U costs. The City’s municipal aggregation program, which may offer residents low electricity rates, could help cost burdened renters O\R ]e\S`a Oa QO\ O Q][[Wb[S\b b] W[^ZS[S\bW\U S\S`Ug STÀQWS\b designs as part of rehabilitation and new construction. Finally, a T]Qca ]\ Q][^OQb \SWUVP]`V]]Ra acQV Oa bVS O`SO OZ]\U 9W`QV]TT Road, offers residents ways to reduce transportation costs.

*( 8c\h_ZXd JeZ_\jo e] :_l_b <dĂś_d\\hi% KhX]Ă’Z >\d\hXj\[ Yo D_n\[$Li\ ;\l\befc\dji Ă… J_n$ Region Study Using Consistent Built Environmental Measures. Journal of Urban Planning, October 2010.

Housing and Transportation @d h\Z\dj o\Xhi# :EK [\l\bef\[ Xd Xbj\hdXj_l\ mXo je [\Ă’d\ “affordable housingâ€? as housing which costs no more than 45 percent of both housing and transportation costs. According je :EK Ă’Ăľkh\i# )) f\hZ\dj e] jof_ZXb h\Ăľ_edXb ^eki\^eb[i X 2.73 person household earning $60,289) would pay less than 45 percent of household income on housing and transportation costs combined when living in Rolling Meadows. This alternate c\Xikh\ Ă’d[i b\ii X]]eh[XYb\ ^eki_dĂľ _d Iebb_dĂľ D\X[emi j^Xd the traditional U.S. Census method.

Residential energy use by municipality compared to Cook County, 2007 COOK COUNTY

ROLLING MEADOWS

7,692 kWh

8,421 kWh

$828

$906

1,130 Therms

656 Therms

Average Annual $ for Natural Gas per Household*

$1,274

$582

Average Annual Energy Costs

$2,102

$1,488

Average Electricity Use per Household Average Annual $ for Electricity per Household* Average Natural Gas Use per Household

JekhZ\1 :EK <d\hĂśo :ecckd_jo GheĂ’b\ *Calculated using average residential sales per kilowatt hour (kWh) (Illinois Commerce Commission Utility Sales Statistics 2007).

110

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

Design Workshop 7\ 8c\S bVS 6][Sa T]` O 1VO\UW\U @SUW]\ bSO[ Q]\RcQbSR O community workshop in Rolling Meadows. Residents, community ZSORS`a 1Wbg ]TĂ€QWOZa O\R ]bVS`a ^`SaS\bSR bVSW` dWSea ]\ O 1Wbg selected portion of Algonquin Road. Participants considered a mix of possible changes for the area. While most attendees wanted to keep the primarily commercial nature of Algonquin Road, some recommended expanded or improved housing options along the corridor, including multi-family buildings of up to six stories and cottage housing. Commercial options would mix anchor retail, such as a grocery store with small shops and restaurants. Algonquin Road today

Source: Northwest Suburban Housing Collaborative.

These ideas were translated into the following images, showing V]e bVS O`SO Q]cZR PS b`O\aT]`[SR BVS ^WQbc`Sa `SĂ SQb \]b ]\Zg the community feedback from the meeting but also some of the concepts of this report. The community feedback shaped the recommended strategies in this report, including short-term and long-term recommendations regarding the potential of the Algonquin Road corridor.

Urban Design Focus Area

HOUSING POLICY PLAN: ROLLING MEADOWS

Algonquin Road with private investment

Source: Fregonese Associates.

Source: Fregonese Associates.

111

112

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

Recommended Strategies 6OdW\U QO`STcZZg O\OZghSR Qc``S\b O\R ^`]XSQbSR V]caW\U \SSRa ]T Rolling Meadows, a number of practical and achievable housing strategies will allow the City to build upon its considerable assets while also addressing its future challenges. Foreclosures 7\ bVS aV]`b bS`[ ]\S ]T bVS 1Wbgša []ab ^`SaaW\U V]caW\U WaacSa Wa the impact of foreclosures, in particular condominium foreclosures. 7b Wa `SQ][[S\R bVOb @]ZZW\U ;SOR]ea T]Qca ]\ `SZObW]\aVW^ building locally, thereby creating a base for the regional efforts touched on previously in this report. Â’ 1]\bW\cS b] caS bVS T]`SQZ]ac`S RObO ^`]dWRSR bV`]cUV >cPZWQ /Qb '$ &#$ O\R @SQ]`R 7\T]`[ObW]\ AS`dWQSa b] [O^ O\R []\Wb]` bVS location and change of foreclosures within the City. Â’ CbWZWhS RObO b] b`OQY bVS ^`]U`Saa O\R Z]QObW]\ ]T T]`SQZ]ac`Sa in the City to develop targeted foreclosure prevention and disposition services through the Collaborative. Â’ 1][PW\S bVWa T]`SQZ]ac`S RObO eWbV bVS RObO ^`]dWRSR Pg condominium and townhouse associations through the City’s existing registration requirements to undertake the following OQbWdWbWSa( Â’ ;]\Wb]` bVS \c[PS` ]T T]`SQZ]ac`Sa eWbVW\ W\RWdWRcOZ PcWZRW\Ua Â’ CaS O\\cOZ `SUWab`ObW]\ `S_cW`S[S\ba b] RWaQcaa RObO b`S\Ra with associations and hear concerns and issues. Â’ 2SdSZ]^ PS\QV[O`Ya WRS\bWTgW\U eVS\ O ^`]^S`bg Wa Q]\aWRS`SR Âśb`]cPZSR¡ \c[PS` ^S`QS\bOUS ]T T]`SQZ]ac`Sa \c[PS` percentage of rentals, number of different rental owners, utility shutoffs). Â’ E]`Y eWbV bVS 1]ZZOP]`ObWdS b] RSdSZ]^ W\bS`dS\bW]\ ab`ObSUWSa for particularly “troubledâ€? properties.

Rental licensing The City does not currently require landlord education as part of the licensing requirement, though it does offer Crime Free MultiV]caW\U abO\RO`Ra b] OZZ ]e\S`a [O\OUS`a @]ZZW\U ;SOR]ea should consider adopting an education program as part of the rental licensing process and explore partnering with other Collaborative [S[PS`a b] Q`SObS O\R ]^S`ObS acQV O ^`]U`O[ AcQV O ^`]U`O[ could become more attractive to landlords if tied to incentives for participation. Moreover, the City should continue to ensure that its rental license program collects information on ownership, management, and inspection status for all rental units so that data QO\ PS Q][PW\SR O\R O\OZghSR ]\ O `SUW]\OZ aQOZS 0g Q]ZZSQbW\U the same information in the same format, Rolling Meadows can work with its partners on common rental housing issues, including addressing problem landlords across a number of communities. Utilize the Collaborative as a resource As the City considers how to maintain housing options for residents of all income levels, improve the quality of current rental complexes, and reduce the impact of foreclosures, staff and elected ]TĂ€QWOZa aV]cZR cbWZWhS bVS 1]ZZOP]`ObWdS Oa O `Sa]c`QS b] ORR`Saa bVSaS WaacSa 7\ ^O`bWQcZO` bVS 1Wbg aV]cZR Sf^Z]`S bVS T]ZZ]eW\U ]^^]`bc\WbWSa eWbV bVS 1]ZZOP]`ObWdS( Â’ ;SbV]Ra bVOb VSZ^ bVS 1Wbg [OW\bOW\ O `O\US ]T V]caW\U bg^Sa bVOb meet all income needs while improving unit quality and household stability. Â’ 7RS\bWĂ€QObW]\ ]T Tc\RW\U a]c`QSa T]` S\S`Ug STĂ€QWS\Qg ^`]XSQba for both single-family and multi-family structures. Once funding Wa WRS\bWĂ€SR @]ZZW\U ;SOR]ea aV]cZR RSdSZ]^ ^`]U`O[a T]` P]bV rental and owner structures. Â’ /a bVS 1Wbgša V][S]e\S`ša OUS PSbeSS\ \]e O\R " [O\g will want to stay in their current home. Working with the Collaborative on an “aging in placeâ€? guide can help residents `S[OW\ W\ bVSW` V][Sa AcQV O ^`]U`O[ aV]cZR WRS\bWTg W[^]`bO\b []RWĂ€QObW]\a \SSRSR b] W[^`]dS OQQSaaWPWZWbg SZW[W\ObS PO``WS`a and create safer spaces. Continue efforts to redevelop Kirchoff Road AbO`bW\U eWbV bVS $ 1][^`SVS\aWdS >ZO\ @]ZZW\U ;SOR]ea a]cUVb ]^^]`bc\WbWSa b] `SRSdSZ]^ YSg c\RS`cbWZWhSR ^`]^S`bWSa OZ]\U 9W`QV]TT @]OR eWbV bVS U]OZ ]T b`O\aT]`[W\U bVS O`SO W\b] O neighborhood center that includes both multi-family residential and retail. While some development has been completed near Owl Road, opportunities for future redevelopment remain, including on one City-owned parcel. Rolling Meadows should continue with plans for additional multi-family housing in the area, including some senior housing.

HOUSING POLICY PLAN: ROLLING MEADOWS

113

Conclusion Algonquin Road The multi-family units in southern Rolling Meadows supply a aWU\WÀQO\b O[]c\b ]T V]caW\U T]` V]caSV]ZRa [OYW\U ZSaa bVO\ !# O ^]`bW]\ ]T bVS [O`YSb Sf^SQbSR b] U`]e W\ bVS \Sfb ! gSO`a 7\ bVS ^Oab bVS 1Wbg c\RS`b]]Y STT]`ba b] W[^`]dS bVS _cOZWbg of this area. Yet, concerns about the quality of these units remain. BVS`ST]`S @]ZZW\U ;SOR]ea aV]cZR c\RS`bOYS bVS T]ZZ]eW\U( Â’ BVS 1Wbg¹a /ZU]\_cW\ @]OR Q]``WR]` Wa O [Wf ]T ]TÀQS `SbOWZ O\R apartments. While the area contains all the features of a great \SWUVP]`V]]R SRcQObW]\ Z]QObW]\ ]^S\ a^OQS `SbOWZ ]TÀQS residential), the lack of pedestrian and bicycle connections between properties undermines this potential. As a result, the City should explore strategic infrastructure improvements which link residential areas (both single and multi-family) to PcaW\SaaSa O\R SRcQObW]\OZ W\abWbcbW]\a 7[^`]dS[S\ba aV]cZR include the creation of a complete pedestrian and bicycle network with upgrades to streets and sidewalks. Priority should be given to linking residences with the area’s numerous satellite college facilities. Â’ @]ZZW\U ;SOR]ea aV]cZR e]`Y eWbV /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba O\R ;]c\b Prospect on coordinated strategies for the Algonquin Road Q]``WR]` AcQV STT]`ba aV]cZR W\QZcRS( Â’ Ac^^]`b T]` b`O\a^]`bObW]\ W[^`]dS[S\ba ]\ bVS 7 ' Q]``WR]` which provide greater regional access. Â’ 1]\aWRS`ObW]\ ]T `S\]dObW]\ `SRSdSZ]^[S\b ]^^]`bc\WbWSa bVOb PcWZR ]TT ]T bVSaS b`O\a^]`bObW]\ W[^`]dS[S\ba O\R S[^VOaWhS pedestrian and bicycle connections. Â’ @]ZZW\U ;SOR]ea Q`SObSR bVS >]ZWQS <SWUVP]`V]]R @Sa]c`QS 1S\bS` ><@1 W\ '' Oa O b]]Z b] VSZ^ S\VO\QS bVS _cOZWbg ]T ZWTS of residents in southern parts of the City. Research indicates that social services can increase housing stability among low income populations. While recent budgets have made continuing the ><@1 RWTÀQcZb bVS 1Wbg aV]cZR Sf^Z]`S ]^^]`bc\WbWSa T]` aVO`SR a]QWOZ aS`dWQS ^`]dWaW]\ b] VSZ^ `SRcQS Q]aba AcQV Q][PW\ObW]\a could come through partnerships with nearby communities, such Oa /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba O\R ;]c\b >`]a^SQb ]` Z]QOZ S[^Z]gS`a

With its strategic location, strong neighborhoods, good schools, and solid employment base, Rolling Meadows will continue to be a desirable community in the future. The recommendations of this report offer ways to build on these strengths and care for all residents. Through the City’s code enforcement, monitoring and licensing efforts, buttressed by the resources of the Collaborative, the community can address its short- and medium-term issues around foreclosures and rental-unit quality. Projected growth can VSZ^ ^`]dWRS bVS POaWa T]` bVS `SRSdSZ]^[S\b ]T 9W`QV]TT @]OR O\R Algonquin Road, further solidifying the status of Rolling Meadows as an attractive community.

114

115

Appendix Approach And Methodology This technical memorandum provides an overview of three key O\OZgbWQOZ b]]Za caSR T]` bVS >VOaS 77 GSO` $ Homes for a Changing Region `S^]`b( O V]caW\U \SSRa O\OZgaWa O QO^OQWbg O\OZgaWa O\R bVS 3\dW`][S\bOZ AgabS[a @SaSO`QV 7\abWbcbS 3A@7 BO^Sab`g market segmentation system.

Housing Analysis The housing needs analysis was conducted using a model to RSbS`[W\S V]caW\U \SSRa T]` SOQV ]T Ă€dS Q][[c\WbWSa O\R bVS OUU`SUObS ]T OZZ Ă€dS Q][PW\SR BVS []RSZša `SacZba O`S R`WdS\ Pg current and projected demographics and regional tenure choices. The model’s outputs include needed housing units by tenure ]e\S`aVW^ dS`aca `S\bOZ Pg W\Q][S `O\US ES caS bVS []RSZ b] Ă€\R gaps that may represent current unmet needs and future housing \SSRa 7\ bVWa ^`]XSQb bVS []RSZ VOa PSS\ caSR b] WRS\bWTg Z]QOZ O\R subregional housing needs and market opportunities.

How Does the Model Work? The housing needs for the region are driven by the current housing choices in the region and the projected future demographic b`S\Ra 7\ [O\g O`SOa O`]c\R bVS Q]c\b`g bVS abO\RO`R ^`OQbWQS for estimating future housing need has been to use the past to extrapolate future housing requirements. While this market ]` RS[O\R R`WdS\ O^^`]OQV eOa Q][[]\Zg caSR b] RSĂ€\S bVS housing “needsâ€? for an area, the true housing “needsâ€? of that O`SOša ^]^cZObW]\ [Og \]b VOdS PSS\ ORR`SaaSR CaW\U 4`SU]\SaS /aa]QWObSaš 0OZO\QSR 6]caW\U ;]RSZ bS\c`S QV]WQSa O\R W\Q][Sa RSbS`[W\S V]caW\U Âś\SSR ¡ 7\ bVWa []RSZ ÂśOTT]`ROPZS¡ Wa \]b referring to low-income housing, but rather to the relationship between incomes and housing costs. The “30% ruleâ€? assumes that housing is only affordable for a household if it spends less than 30% of its gross income on housing expenses.

The model’s approach was designed based on research showing that two variables — age of head of household (Age=A) and household W\Q][S 7\Q][S+7 ¾ RS[]\ab`ObSR aWU\WÀQO\bZg ab`]\US` correlation with housing tenure than other variables, including V]caSV]ZR aWhS 4`SU]\SaS /aa]QWObSa aSZSQbSR bVSaS be] dO`WOPZSa Oa bVS ^`W[O`g RS[]U`O^VWQ dO`WOPZSa T]` bVS []RSZ 7\ ORRWbW]\ household income is another key variable used to help determine the affordability component of housing needs. As expected, data gathered during research on model development showed that RWTTS`S\b /US 7\Q][S /7 Q]V]`ba [OYS aWU\WÀQO\bZg RWTTS`S\b V]caW\U bS\c`S QV]WQSa 4]` SfO[^ZS O V]caSV]ZR VSORSR Pg O #! gSO` ]ZR O\R SO`\W\U $ Wa ZWYSZg b] [OYS O RWTTS`S\b V]caW\U QV]WQS bVO\ ]\S VSORSR Pg O ' gSO` ]ZR O\R SO`\W\U "! BVS []RSZ Wa À`ab caSR b] QOZQcZObS bVS b]bOZ \c[PS` ]T V]caW\U c\Wba \SSRSR T]` bVS ^ZO\\W\U ^S`W]R POaSR ]\( ’ 1VWQOU] ;Sb`]^]ZWbO\ /US\Qg T]` >ZO\\W\U 1;/> 5= B= " population and household projections. ’ <c[PS` ]T ^S]^ZS W\ U`]c^ _cO`bS`a ’ < c[PS` ]T ]QQc^WSR V]caW\U c\Wba (number of households). ’ /dS`OUS V]caSV]ZR aWhS ’ Assumed vacancy rate for the study area in a healthy housing market.

116

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

The data sources for the population estimates, people in group _cO`bS`a O\R ]QQc^WSR V]caW\U c\Wba eS`S bOYS\ T`][ bVS C A 1S\aca 0c`SOcša $ /[S`WQO\ 1][[c\Wbg Ac`dSg /1A RObO BVS \c[PS` ]T V]caSV]ZRa W\ SOQV /7 Q]V]`b eOa QOZQcZObSR Pg cbWZWhW\U /1A RObO b] RSbS`[W\S bVS ^S`QS\bOUSa ]T V]caSV]ZRa bVOb O`S W\ bVS & /7 Q]V]`ba " OUS Q]V]`ba O\R % W\Q][S Q]V]`ba

As part of our more detailed housing analysis, a capacity analysis eOa Q]\RcQbSR T]` /`ZW\Ub]\ 6SWUVba 0cTTOZ] 5`]dS ;]c\b Prospect, Palatine and Rolling Meadows. The capacity analysis contained two major components.

Capacity Analysis

Age ranges and income ranges for home analysis AGE RANGES

INCOME RANGES

<25

<15K

25-44

15K<35K

45-64

35K<50K

65+

50K<75K 75K<100K 100K<150K 150K

BVS /1A US\S`ObSR bS\c`S ^O`O[SbS`a caSR W\ bVS []RSZ `S^`SaS\b the probabilities of being a renter or homeowner for each of the 28 /7 Q]V]`ba 0OaSR ]\ bVSaS bS\c`S ^O`O[SbS`a bVS []RSZ OZZ]QObSa bV]aS V]caSV]ZRa W\ SOQV /7 Q]V]`b b] O\ W\RWQObSR \c[PS` ]T `S\bOZ and ownership units that is affordable for the income range for that cohort. The model then aggregates the units demanded within each income range to show the total units that could be afforded Ob SOQV W\Q][S `O\US Pg bS\c`S B] SabW[ObS bVS Tcbc`S /7 Q]V]`ba bVS Qc``S\b /7 ^S`QS\bOUSa eS`S ORXcabSR b] `SĂ SQb RS[]U`O^VWQ T]`SQOaba T]` bVS \ObW]\ Pg bVS CA 1S\aca 0c`SOc

CMAP GO TO 2040 Population and Household Projections The CMAP 2040 Forecast of Population, Households and Employment eOa RSdSZ]^SR W\ ac^^]`b ]T bVS 5= B= " comprehensive regional plan adopted on October 13, 2010. This forecast was developed through the creation of a “reference scenarioâ€? based on current population and land use trends. Mathematical modeling techniques were then employed to evaluate how the distribution of population and employment would change in response to different planning strategies which might increase or dampen the amount of socioeconomic activity within a given O`SO BVS RObO W\ bVWa T]`SQOab `SĂ SQb bVS 1;/> >`STS``SR @SUW]\OZ AQS\O`W] eVWQV eOa RSdSZ]^SR W\ ^O`b bV`]cUV O aS`WSa ]T 7\dS\b the Future workshops held throughout the region between May and AS^bS[PS` ' 0SQOcaS ]T bVS Q]\\SQbW]\ PSbeSS\ bVS ^`]XSQbW]\a O\R bVS >`STS``SR @SUW]\OZ AQS\O`W] bVS ^`]XSQbW]\a `SĂ SQb O `SUW]\ eVS`S bVS 5= B= " >ZO\ VOa PSS\ acQQSaaTcZZg W[^ZS[S\bSR

’ An estimate of the amount of development potential remaining c\RS` bVS SfWabW\U h]\W\U POaSR ]\ RSdSZ]^OPZS O\R ]` redevelopable land or long-term planning. This approach uses 5S]U`O^VWQ 7\T]`[ObW]\ AgabS[a 57A O\R bVS QOZQcZObSR RSdSZ]^[S\b QO^OQWbg ]T ZO\R Wa POaSR ]\ abO\RO`RWhSR PcWZROPZS land assumptions. ’ The number of currently vacant housing units that may be occupied by future households as the local housing markets abOPWZWhS BVWa O^^`]OQV Wa POaSR ]\ P]bV \ObW]\eWRS `SaSO`QV on the vacancy rates typically associated with rental and owner V]caW\U OZ]\U eWbV /1A RObO ]\ bVS Qc``S\b Z]QOZ dOQO\Qg `ObS When these sources of capacity are combined, they illustrate each community’s ability to accommodate projected future growth eWbV]cb ORXcab[S\ba b] Z]QOZ h]\W\U ]`RW\O\QSa

Geographic Information Systems 57A eOa caSR b] QOZQcZObS dOQO\b O\R `SRSdSZ]^OPZS ZO\R OTbS` S\dW`]\[S\bOZZg Q]\ab`OW\SR ZO\Ra eS`S `S[]dSR BVS POaWQ 57A ^`]QSaa W\d]ZdSR aSdS`OZ abS^a( Â’ Lake County and Cook County Assessor parcel data (2009) was caSR b] ac[[O`WhS dOQO\b OQ`Sa ]T ZO\R Pg h]\S bVWa W\QZcRSa removal of environmentally constrained land, e.g. wetlands, Ă ]]R ^ZOW\a O\R abSS^ aZ]^Sa Â’ Lake County and Cook County Assessor 2009 parcel data eOa caSR b] ac[[O`WhS `SRSdSZ]^OPZS OQ`Sa ]T ZO\R Pg h]\S based on the ratio of land value to improvement value, with redevelopable acres being those with a lave value greater than the improvement value. Â’ B VS [OfW[c[ RS\aWbg OZZ]eSR W\ bVS h]\W\U Q]RS T]` SOQV h]\S eOa QOZQcZObSR caW\U [c\WQW^OZ h]\W\U Q]RSa Oa O UcWRS Â’ B VS RSdSZ]^[S\b ^]bS\bWOZ ]T dOQO\b ZO\R Pg h]\S eOa QOZQcZObSR by multiplying maximum density by vacant acres. Â’ B VS RSdSZ]^[S\b ^]bS\bWOZ ]T `SRSdSZ]^OPZS ZO\R Pg h]\S eOa calculated by multiplying maximum density by non-vacant acres and by a redevelopment percentage. Â’ The initial capacity estimates were submitted to the [c\WQW^OZWbWSa T]` `SdWSe O\R `SĂ€\S[S\b Â’ 0OaSR ]\ [c\WQW^OZ W\^cb \SQSaaO`g ORXcab[S\ba eS`S [ORS

APPENDIX

Future Housing Demand by Type: ESRI Tapestry data and National Residential Preference Surveys Each community’s future housing demand by type was estimated POaSR ]\( Local existing housing stock. :]QOZ SfWabW\U 3A@7 BO^Sab`g :WTS;]RS aSU[S\b U`]c^a <ObW]\OZ Tcbc`S V]caW\U ^`STS`S\QS ac`dSga 3A@7 BO^Sab`g [O`YSb `SaSO`QV RObO eOa caSR b] WRS\bWTg U`]c^a of market segments comprising the largest percentages of each community’s population today. The largest LifeMode groups were ac[[O`WhSR W\ SOQV Q][[c\Wbg¹a `S^]`b BVS 3A@7 RObO Wa caSTcZ in helping the municipalities understand and take advantage of the types of housing and neighborhoods preferred by these groups. We also used the LifeMode characteristics to approximate each LifeMode group’s current housing type preference, and their propensity for living in a compact or non-traditional neighborhood in the future. The average ages provided in each community report represent the weighted average of median ages for that particular community’s market segment mix. FAMILY TYPE

PREFERENCE FOR COMPACT NEIGHBORHOODS

Married Couples

Low

MiddleUpper

Mixed

Medium

29-39

Middle

Mixed

Medium

L4 Solo Acts

29-39

MiddleUpper

Singlesshared

High

L5 Senior Styles

42-73

Middle

Married no-kids

Medium

L6 Scholars and Patriots

22-43

Modest

Married With Kids, singles

High

L7 High Hopes

30-33

Middle

Family Mixed

Medium

L8 Global Roots

26-37

Modest

Family Mixed

High

L9 Family Portrait

29-55

Varies

Married w/ Kids

Low

L10 Traditional Living

32-39

Modest

Mixed

Medium

L11 Factories and Farms

35-49

Modest

Married Couple Families

Low

L12 American Quilt

32-48

Middle

Married Couple Families

Low

LIFEMODE GROUPS

MEDIAN AGES

INCOME

L1 High Society

34-47

Upper

L2 Upscale Avenues

32-43

L3 Metropolis

66 LdZbXii_Ò\[ Source: ESRI

117

Then, several recent national surveys on residential preference eS`S O\OZghSR O\R W\Q]`^]`ObSR W\b] SOQV Q][[c\Wbg¹a ^`]XSQbW]\a BVSaS ac`dSga eS`S Q][^WZSR Pg bVS C\WdS`aWbg ]T CbOV¹a 2` /`bVc` 1 <SZa]\ W\ The New California Dream: How Demographic and Economic Trends May Shape the Housing Market. The summary of the nation’s estimated future demand is shown below.

HOUSING TYPE

NELSON TOTAL DEMAND 2006 (%)

RCLCO OWNER DEMAND 2008 (%)

MYERS & GEARIN TOWNHOUSE DEMAND 2001 (%)

Multifamily

23

24

—

23

23

Townhouse

15

10

17

5

5

Small Lot

37

35

—

15

25

Conventional Lot

25

31

—

57

47

AHS SUPPLY A 2009 (%)

AHS SUPPLY B 2009 (%)

Sources: Myers and Gearin (2001); The New California Dream: How Demographic and Economic Trends May Shape the Housing Market, Dr. Arthur C. Nelson, Urban Land Institute, December 2011; Nelson (2006); RCLCO (2008); U.S. Census Bureau (2010). Eej\1 Å dej XlX_bXYb\2 8% JcXbb bej 4 (&- XZh\2 9% JcXbb bej 4 (&+ XZh\%

Unknown

118

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

Combined Northwest Advisory Group: Suburban Housing CMAP Housing Committee Collaborative Housing Nora Boyer, Village of Arlington Heights Fact Sheet Rob Breymaier, Oak Park Regional Housing Center Elizabeth Caton, Northwest Side Housing Center Sarah Ciampi, Lake County Community Development Division Paul Colgan, Colgan Public Affairs Spencer Cowan, Woodstock Institute Adam Dontz, Lake Star Advisors Nancy Firfer, Metropolitan Planning Council

Population and Household Forecast 2006/2010-40 Combined Northwest Suburban Housing Collaborative 2006-2010 ACS

2040 CMAP

% CHANGE

Households

101,978

116,654

14.4%

Population

261,679

305,444

16.7%

Source: U.S. Census and CMAP GO TO 2040 projections.

Andy Geer, Enterprise Community Partners Sharon Gorrell, Illinois Association of Realtors Adam Gross, Business and Professional People for the Public Interest

BVS RObO T]` $ OdS`OUS Q][Sa RW`SQbZg T`][ bVS C A 1S\aca 0c`SOcša /1A BVS ^`]XSQbW]\a T]` " `SĂ SQb O T]`SQOab ]T SOQV community’s potential population and household growth if the 1;/>ša 5= B= " ^ZO\ Wa W[^ZS[S\bSR

Tammie Grossman, Village of Oak Park Calvin Holmes, Chicago Community Loan Fund

Estimated 2040 Housing Demand by Income

Jane Hornstein, Cook County Bureau of Economic Development

The tables in this section compare the number of dwelling units W\ /1A RObO bVOb eS`S ÂśOTT]`ROPZS¡ b] V]caSV]ZRa eWbVW\ an income category to the projected demand for such units in " / c\Wb Wa RSĂ€\SR Oa ÂśOTT]`ROPZS¡ WT O V]caSV]ZR QO\ ZWdS W\ it by allocating no more than 30% of its income for housing-related Q]aba `S\b []`bUOUS ^Og[S\ba cbWZWbWSa SbQ 7T bVS V]caW\U ab]QY T]` O\ W\Q][S QObSU]`g SfQSSRa bVS " RS[O\R projections, it means that a municipality may already have units PSg]\R Wba T]`SQOabSR \SSR 7T V]eSdS` " RS[O\R Wa VWUVS` bVO\ the 2010 housing stock, additional units will be needed to meet projected demand.

Kevin Jackson, Chicago Rehab Network Christine Kolb, Urban Land Institute Chicago Paul Leder, Manhard Consulting, Ltd. Anthony Manno, Regional Transportation Authority Taylor McKinney, Center for Neighborhood Technology Allison Milld Clements, Metropolitan Mayors Caucus Janice Morrissy, South Suburban Housing Collaborative Carrol Roark, DuPage County Geoff Smith, DePaul University Andrea Traudt, Illinois Housing Council Joanna Trotter, Metropolitan Planning Council Kim Ulbrich, McHenry County Department of Planning and Development ;WX] D]R]^WQ, MacArthur Foundation Stacie Young, The Preservation Compact

Estimated 2040 Affordable Housing Demand Compared to 2006-2010 Housing Stock This section contains the charts which illustrate the data from the tables preceeding them.

APPENDIX

119

Rental housing - combined Northwest Suburban Housing Collaborative <15k

15k <35k

35k <50k

50k <75k

75k <100k

100k <150k

150k+

TOTAL

1,761

5,596

11,108

4,427

1,163

267

160

24,482

Demand at Income Level (2010)

4,277

9,661

5,358

2,692

1,411

812

272

24,482

Projected Demand at Income Level (2040)

4,645

10,691

6,047

3,065

1,598

842

247

27,135

Target Units Needed to Meet Projected Demand by Income

2,884

5,095

n/a

n/a

435

575

87

2,653

n/a

n/a

5,061

1,362

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Occupied Housing Stock Affordable at 30% of Income (2010)

Additional Units Beyond Forecasted Need Within this Income Range

Please note that housing units may not add up exactly to 100% due to rounding. Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese ETBH model using 2006-10 ACS and GO TO 2040 household growth projections as inputs.

Owner Housing - combined Northwest Suburban Housing Collaborative <15k

15k <35k

35k <50k

50k <75k

75k <100k

100k <150k

150k+

TOTAL

Occupied Housing Stock Affordable at 30% of Income (2010)

1,540

16,606

9,358

16,058

24,769

6,109

3,055

77,496

Demand at Income Level (2010)

3,733

10,711

9,586

16,316

12,386

12,762

12,002

77,496

Projected Demand at Income Level (2040)

5,400

14,817

12,339

19,865

14,426

13,669

12,216

92,732

Target Units Needed to Meet Projected Demand by Income

3,860

n/a

2,981

3,807

n/a

7,560

9,161

15,236

Additional Units Beyond Forecasted Need Within this Income Range

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

1,789

10,343

n/a

Please note that housing units may not add up exactly to 100% due to rounding. Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese ETBH model using 2006-10 ACS and GO TO 2040 household growth projections as inputs.

NWSHC 2010 households and housing stock compared with 2040 renter demand

NWSHC 2010 households and housing stock compared with 2040 owner demand

OCCUPIED HOUSING STOCK AFFORDABLE AT 30% OF INCOME (2010)

OCCUPIED HOUSING STOCK AFFORDABLE AT 30% OF INCOME (2010)

DEMAND AT INCOME LEVEL (2010)

DEMAND AT INCOME LEVEL (2010)

PROJECTED DEMAND AT INCOME LEVEL (2040)

PROJECTED DEMAND AT INCOME LEVEL (2040) 25,000

10,000 20,000 8,000 15,000 6,000

10,000

4,000

5,000

2,000

0

<15k

<35k

<50k

<75k

<100k

<150k

150k+

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese ETBH model using 2006-10 ACS and GO TO 2040 household growth projections as inputs.

0

<15k

<35k

<50k

<75k

<100k

<150k

150k+

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese ETBH model using 2006-10 ACS and GO TO 2040 household growth projections as inputs.

120

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

Arlington Heights Housing Factsheet Population and Household Forecast 2006/2010-40 2006-2010 ACS

2040 CMAP

% CHANGE

Households

30,211

34,102

12.9%

Population

74,967

86,059

14.8%

Source: U.S. Census and CMAP GO TO 2040 projections.

Estimated 2040 housing demand by income, rental housing, Arlington Heights 15k <35k

35k <50k

50k <75k

75k <100k

100k <150k

150k+

TOTAL

738

1,286

3,070

1,266

453

117

70

6,999

Demand at Income Level (2010)

1,523

2,356

1,522

844

367

263

125

6,999

Projected Demand at Income Level (2040)

1,619

2,505

1,674

953

416

285

116

7,568

881

1,220

n/a

n/a

n/a

168

46

569

1,396

313

37

n/a

n/a

n/a

150k+

TOTAL

ARLINGTON HEIGHTS Occupied Housing Stock Affordable at 30% of Income (2010)

Target Units Needed to Meet Projected Demand by Income Additional Units Beyond Forecasted Need Within this Income Range

<15k

n/a

n/a

Please note that housing units may not add up exactly to 100% due to rounding. Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese ETBH model using 2006-10 ACS and GO TO 2040 household growth projections as inputs.

Estimated 2040 housing demand by income, owner housing, Arlington Heights ARLINGTON HEIGHTS

15k <35k

35k <50k

50k <75k

75k <100k

100k <150k

618

5,349

2,898

4,353

7,262

1,821

911

23,212

Demand at Income Level (2010)

1,051

3,173

2,402

4,986

3,848

3,733

4,018

23,212

Projected Demand at Income Level (2040)

1,453

4,049

3,061

5,954

4,538

4,120

4,260

27,435

835

n/a

163

1,601

n/a

2,299

3,349

4,223

n/a

n/a

n/a

Occupied Housing Stock Affordable at 30% of Income (2010)

Target Units Needed to Meet Projected Demand by Income Additional Units Beyond Forecasted Need Within this Income Range

<15k

n/a

1,300

n/a

n/a

Please note that housing units may not add up exactly to 100% due to rounding. Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese ETBH model using 2006-10 ACS and GO TO 2040 household growth projections as inputs.

2,724

APPENDIX

121

Estimated 2040 Affordable Housing Demand Compared to 2006-10 Housing Stock This section contains the charts which illustrate the data from the tables on the previous page.

Arlington Heights 2010 households and housing stock compared with 2040 rental demand

Arlington Heights 2010 households and housing stock compared with 2040 owner demand

OCCUPIED HOUSING STOCK AFFORDABLE AT 30% OF INCOME (2010)

OCCUPIED HOUSING STOCK AFFORDABLE AT 30% OF INCOME (2010)

DEMAND AT INCOME LEVEL (2010)

DEMAND AT INCOME LEVEL (2010)

PROJECTED DEMAND AT INCOME LEVEL (2040)

PROJECTED DEMAND AT INCOME LEVEL (2040)

3,000

7,000

2,500

6,000

5,000 2,000 4,000 1,500 3,000 1,000 2,000 500

0

1,000

<$15

<$35

<$50

<$75

<$100

<$150

$150+

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese Envision Tomorrow Balanced Housing Model using ACS 2006-10 and CMAP GO TO 2040 household forecast inputs.

0

<$15

<$35

<$50

<$75

<$100

<$150

$150+

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese Envision Tomorrow Balanced Housing Model using ACS 2006-10 and CMAP GO TO 2040 household forecast inputs.

122

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

Buffalo Grove Housing Factsheet Population and Household Forecast 2006/2010-40 2006-2010 ACS

2040 CMAP

% CHANGE

Households

16,350

19,099

16.8%

Population

41,859

50,363

20.3%

Source: U.S. Census and CMAP GO TO 2040 projections.

Estimated 2040 housing demand by income, rental housing, Buffalo Grove BUFFALO GROVE Occupied Housing Stock Affordable at 30% of Income (2010)

<15k

15k <35k

35k <50k

50k <75k

75k <100k

100k <150k

150k+

TOTAL

141

338

982

878

255

70

42

2,706

Demand at Income Level (2010)

420

929

538

249

293

183

95

2,706

Projected Demand at Income Level (2040)

481

1,113

627

267

347

193

89

3,117

Target Units Needed to Meet Projected Demand by Income

340

775

n/a

n/a

92

123

47

411

355

611

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

50k <75k

75k <100k

100k <150k

150k+

TOTAL

Additional Units Beyond Forecasted Need Within this Income Range

n/a

n/a

Please note that housing units may not add up exactly to 100% due to rounding. Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese ETBH model using 2006-10 ACS and GO TO 2040 household growth projections as inputs.

Estimated 2040 housing demand by income, owner housing, Buffalo Grove BUFFALO GROVE

<15k

15k <35k

35k <50k

Occupied Housing Stock Affordable at 30% of Income (2010)

108

2,052

1,421

2,426

5,498

1,426

713

13,644

Demand at Income Level (2010)

811

1,587

1,408

2,539

2,433

2,110

2,756

13,644

Projected Demand at Income Level (2040)

1,161

2,352

1,918

3,067

2,852

2,246

2,819

16,415

Target Units Needed to Meet Projected Demand by Income

1,053

300

497

641

n/a

820

2,106

2,771

Additional Units Beyond Forecasted Need Within this Income Range

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Please note that housing units may not add up exactly to 100% due to rounding. Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese ETBH model using 2006-10 ACS and GO TO 2040 household growth projections as inputs.

2,646

n/a

APPENDIX

123

Estimated 2040 Affordable Housing Demand Compared to 2006-10 Housing Stock This section contains the charts which illustrate the data from the tables on the previous page.

Buffalo Grove 2010 households and housing stock compared with 2040 owner demand

Buffalo Grove 2010 households and housing stock compared with 2040 rental demand

OCCUPIED HOUSING STOCK AFFORDABLE AT 30% OF INCOME (2010)

OCCUPIED HOUSING STOCK AFFORDABLE AT 30% OF INCOME (2010)

DEMAND AT INCOME LEVEL (2010)

DEMAND AT INCOME LEVEL (2010)

PROJECTED DEMAND AT INCOME LEVEL (2040)

PROJECTED DEMAND AT INCOME LEVEL (2040)

5,000

1,000

4,000

800

3,000

600

2,000

400

1,000

200

0

0

<$15

<$35

<$50

<$75

<$100

<$150

$150+

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese Envision Tomorrow Balanced Housing Model using ACS 2006-10 and CMAP GO TO 2040 household forecast inputs.

<$15

<$35

<$50

<$75

<$100

<$150

$150+

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese Envision Tomorrow Balanced Housing Model using ACS 2006-10 and CMAP GO TO 2040 household forecast inputs.

124

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

Mount Prospect Housing Factsheet Population and Household Forecast 2006/2010-40 2006-2010 ACS

2040 CMAP

% CHANGE

Households

20,447

23,378

14.3%

Population

53,838

63,354

17.6%

Source: U.S. Census and CMAP GO TO 2040 projections.

Estimated 2040 housing demand by income, rental housing, Mount Prospect MOUNT PROSPECT

<15k

15k <35k

35k <50k

50k <75k

75k <100k

100k <150k

150k+

TOTAL

Occupied Housing Stock Affordable at 30% of Income (2010)

268

2,135

2,540

416

104

19

11

5,492

Demand at Income Level (2010)

727

2,376

1,324

637

269

144

15

5,492

Projected Demand at Income Level (2040)

787

2,652

1,600

753

360

185

15

6,352

Target Units Needed to Meet Projected Demand by Income

520

517

n/a

337

256

166

4

860

940

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

150k+

TOTAL

Additional Units Beyond Forecasted Need Within this Income Range

n/a

n/a

Please note that housing units may not add up exactly to 100% due to rounding. Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese ETBH model using 2006-10 ACS and GO TO 2040 household growth projections as inputs.

Estimated 2040 housing demand by income, owner housing, Mount Prospect MOUNT PROSPECT

<15k

15k <35k

35k <50k

50k <75k

75k <100k

100k <150k

Occupied Housing Stock Affordable at 30% of Income (2010)

362

4,237

1,689

2,746

4,319

1,068

534

14,955

Demand at Income Level (2010)

793

2,191

1,766

3,429

2,462

2,530

1,783

14,955

1,054

2,974

2,201

4,125

2,764

2,711

1,869

17,698

692

n/a

512

1,379

n/a

1,643

1,335

2,743

n/a

n/a

n/a

Projected Demand at Income Level (2040) Target Units Needed to Meet Projected Demand by Income Additional Units Beyond Forecasted Need Within this Income Range

n/a

1,263

n/a

n/a

Please note that housing units may not add up exactly to 100% due to rounding. Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese ETBH model using 2006-10 ACS and GO TO 2040 household growth projections as inputs.

1,555

APPENDIX

125

Estimated 2040 Affordable Housing Demand Compared to 2006-10 Housing Stock This section contains the charts which illustrate the data from the tables on the previous page.

Mount Prospect 2010 households and housing stock compared with 2040 owner demand

Mount Prospect 2010 households and housing stock compared with 2040 rental demand

OCCUPIED HOUSING STOCK AFFORDABLE AT 30% OF INCOME (2010)

OCCUPIED HOUSING STOCK AFFORDABLE AT 30% OF INCOME (2010)

DEMAND AT INCOME LEVEL (2010)

DEMAND AT INCOME LEVEL (2010)

PROJECTED DEMAND AT INCOME LEVEL (2040)

PROJECTED DEMAND AT INCOME LEVEL (2040)

4,500

2,500

4,000 2,000

3,500 3,000

1,500

2,500 2,000

1,000 1,500 1,000

500

500 0

<$15

<$35

<$50

<$75

<$100

<$150

$150+

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese Envision Tomorrow Balanced Housing Model using ACS 2006-10 and CMAP GO TO 2040 household forecast inputs.

0

<$15

<$35

<$50

<$75

<$100

<$150

$150+

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese Envision Tomorrow Balanced Housing Model using ACS 2006-10 and CMAP GO TO 2040 household forecast inputs.

126

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

Palatine Housing Factsheet Population and Household Forecast 2006/2010-40 2006-2010 ACS

2040 CMAP

% CHANGE

Households

25,939

29,786

14.8%

Population

67,414

78,145

15.9%

Source: U.S. Census and CMAP GO TO 2040 projections.

Estimated 2040 housing demand by income, rental housing, Palatine 15k <35k

35k <50k

50k <75k

75k <100k

100k <150k

150k+

TOTAL

469

1,398

3,485

1,309

281

54

33

7,029

Demand at Income Level (2010)

1,250

2,916

1,487

685

411

228

52

7,029

Projected Demand at Income Level (2040)

1,444

3,243

1,536

784

410

198

38

7,653

975

1,845

n/a

n/a

129

144

5

624

1,949

525

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

150k+

TOTAL

PALATINE

<15k

Occupied Housing Stock Affordable at 30% of Income (2010)

Target Units Needed to Meet Projected Demand by Income Additional Units Beyond Forecasted Need Within this Income Range

n/a

n/a

Please note that housing units may not add up exactly to 100% due to rounding. Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese ETBH model using 2006-10 ACS and GO TO 2040 household growth projections as inputs.

Estimated 2040 housing demand by income, owner housing, Palatine PALATINE

<15k

15k <35k

35k <50k

50k <75k

75k <100k

100k <150k

Occupied Housing Stock Affordable at 30% of Income (2010)

308

3,274

2,504

4,861

5,888

1,383

692

18,910

Demand at Income Level (2010)

756

2,782

2,733

3,522

2,641

3,554

2,922

18,910

1,193

4,025

3,601

4,404

3,121

3,745

2,886

22,975

886

751

1,097

n/a

n/a

2,362

2,194

4,065

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Projected Demand at Income Level (2040) Target Units Needed to Meet Projected Demand by Income Additional Units Beyond Forecasted Need Within this Income Range

n/a

457

Please note that housing units may not add up exactly to 100% due to rounding. Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese ETBH model using 2006-10 ACS and GO TO 2040 household growth projections as inputs.

2,767

APPENDIX

127

Estimated 2040 Affordable Housing Demand Compared to 2006-10 Housing Stock This section contains the charts which illustrate the data from the tables on the previous page.

Palatine 2010 households and housing stock compared with 2040 rental demand

Palatine 2010 households and housing stock compared with 2040 owner demand OCCUPIED HOUSING STOCK AFFORDABLE AT 30% OF INCOME (2010)

OCCUPIED HOUSING STOCK AFFORDABLE AT 30% OF INCOME (2010)

DEMAND AT INCOME LEVEL (2010)

DEMAND AT INCOME LEVEL (2010)

PROJECTED DEMAND AT INCOME LEVEL (2040)

PROJECTED DEMAND AT INCOME LEVEL (2040)

6,000

3,500

5,000

3,000

2,500

4,000

2,000 3,000 1,500 2,000 1,000 1,000

0

500

<$15

<$35

<$50

<$75

<$100

<$150

$150+

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese Envision Tomorrow Balanced Housing Model using ACS 2006-10 and CMAP GO TO 2040 household forecast inputs.

0

<$15

<$35

<$50

<$75

<$100

<$150

$150+

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese Envision Tomorrow Balanced Housing Model using ACS 2006-10 and CMAP GO TO 2040 household forecast inputs.

128

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

Rolling Meadows Housing Factsheet Population and Household Forecast 2006/2010-40 2006-2010 ACS

2040 CMAP

% CHANGE

Households

9,031

10,289

13.9%

Population

23,601

27,524

16.6%

Source: U.S. Census and CMAP GO TO 2040 projections.

Estimated 2040 housing demand by income, rental housing, Rolling Meadows ROLLING MEADOWS

<15k

15k <35k

35k <50k

50k <75k

75k <100k

100k <150k

150k+

TOTAL

Occupied Housing Stock Affordable at 30% of Income (2010)

146

439

1,032

559

70

7

4

2,256

Demand at Income Level (2010)

370

1,039

483

279

84

1

0

2,256

Projected Demand at Income Level (2040)

403

1,123

563

319

101

0

0

2,509

Target Units Needed to Meet Projected Demand by Income

258

684

n/a

n/a

31

n/a

n/a

253

469

240

n/a

7

4

n/a

75k <100k

100k <150k

150k+

TOTAL

Additional Units Beyond Forecasted Need Within this Income Range

n/a

n/a

Please note that housing units may not add up exactly to 100% due to rounding. Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese ETBH model using 2006-10 ACS and GO TO 2040 household growth projections as inputs.

Estimated 2040 housing demand by income, owner housing, Rolling Meadows ROLLING MEADOWS

<15k

15k <35k

35k <50k

50k <75k

Occupied Housing Stock Affordable at 30% of Income (2010)

145

1,695

846

1,671

1,801

411

206

6,775

Demand at Income Level (2010)

340

1,165

1,316

1,561

998

825

569

6,775

Projected Demand at Income Level (2040)

471

1,659

1,551

1,819

1,111

851

586

8,048

Target Units Needed to Meet Projected Demand by Income

327

n/a

705

148

n/a

440

380

1,273

Additional Units Beyond Forecasted Need Within this Income Range

n/a

36

n/a

n/a

Please note that housing units may not add up exactly to 100% due to rounding. Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese ETBH model using 2006-10 ACS and GO TO 2040 household growth projections as inputs.

690

n/a

n/a

n/a

APPENDIX

129

Estimated 2040 Affordable Housing Demand Compared to 2006-10 Housing Stock This section contains the charts which illustrate the data from the tables on the previous page.

Rolling Meadows 2010 households and housing stock compared with 2040 owner demand

Rolling Meadows 2010 households and housing stock compared with 2040 renter demand

OCCUPIED HOUSING STOCK AFFORDABLE AT 30% OF INCOME (2010)

OCCUPIED HOUSING STOCK AFFORDABLE AT 30% OF INCOME (2010)

DEMAND AT INCOME LEVEL (2010)

DEMAND AT INCOME LEVEL (2010)

PROJECTED DEMAND AT INCOME LEVEL (2040)

PROJECTED DEMAND AT INCOME LEVEL (2040)

1,800 1,000 1,600 1,400

800

1,200 600

1,000 800

400 600 400

200

200 0

0 <$15

<$35

<$50

<$75

<$100

<$150

$150+

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese Envision Tomorrow Balanced Housing Model using ACS 2006-10 and CMAP GO TO 2040 household forecast inputs.

<$15

<$35

<$50

<$75

<$100

<$150

$150+

Source: CMAP analysis of Fregonese Envision Tomorrow Balanced Housing Model using ACS 2006-10 and CMAP GO TO 2040 household forecast inputs.

130

HOMES FOR A CHANGING REGION

List of Acronyms ACS

/[S`WQO\ 1][[c\Wbg Ac`dSg

AI

/US 7\Q][S

CDBG

1][[c\Wbg 2SdSZ]^[S\b 0Z]QY 5`O\b

CMAP

Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning

CNT

1S\bS` T]` <SWUVP]`V]]R BSQV\]Z]Ug

CO2e

Carbon dioxide

ESRI

3\dW`]\[S\bOZ AgabS[a @SaSO`QV 7\abWbcbS

GIS

5S]U`O^VWQ 7\T]`[ObW]\ AgabS[

HUD

C A 2S^O`b[S\b ]T 6]caW\U O\R C`PO\ 2SdSZ]^[S\b

IGA

7\bS`U]dS`\[S\bOZ OU`SS[S\b

IRS

7\bS`\OZ @SdS\cS AS`dWQS

LTA

Local Technical Assistance

kWh

9WZ]eObb V]c`

LEED

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

MMC

Metropolitan Mayors Caucus

MPC

Metropolitan Planning Council

MT

Metric tons

NWSHC

<]`bVeSab AcPc`PO\ 6]caW\U 1]ZZOP]`ObWdS

PNRC

>]ZWQS <SWUVP]`V]]R @Sa]c`QS 1S\bS`

TIF

BOf W\Q`S[S\b À\O\QW\U

VMT

Vehicle miles traveled

131

Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning 233 South Wacker Drive Suite 800 Chicago Illinois 60606 312 454 0400 info@cmap.illinois.gov www.cmap.illinois.gov

BVS T]ZZ]eW\U Tc\RS`a [ORS bVWa ^`]XSQb ^]aaWPZS( BVS 1VWQOU] 1][[c\Wbg B`cab O\R bVS 6O``Wa 4O[WZg 4]c\RObW]\ The participation of the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning 1;/> W\ bVWa ^`]XSQb eOa [ORS ^]aaWPZS bV`]cUV O AcabOW\OPZS 1][[c\WbWSa @SUW]\OZ >ZO\\W\U U`O\b T`][ bVS C A 2S^O`b[S\b ]T 6]caW\U O\R C`PO\ 2SdSZ]^[S\b eVWQV ac^^]`ba 1;/>ยนa :]QOZ Technical Assistance (LTA) program.

FY13-0017

Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.